CFTC to sue AEP over false gas trades
Ohio-based utility American Electric Power (AEP) has been charged with reporting 2,800 false natural gas trades to energy price index companies, such as Platts, and attempting to manipulate natural gas prices. The charges, levied by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), mark the second time that a US regulator has sought to litigate, rather than settle, such a case - the first instance being against bankrupt energy trader Enron. Each alleged violation could carry a $120,000 civil penalty.
AEP said that after learning in September 2002 of false reporting of gas price information it undertook its own internal investigation of gas price reporting practices. AEP determined that five then-current employees had submitted inaccurate gas trading information to trade publications. The company terminated the five employees' contracts, self-reported the incident to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the CFTC, publicly announced the employee terminations and put into place procedures to prevent a recurrence of the inaccurate submission of gas trading information.
“We have been co-operating with the CFTC in an attempt to seek resolution to this matter,” said Jeffrey Cross, AEP’s general counsel. “While the possibility of civil action always existed, we are surprised the CFTC chose to file at this time. We still believe that a settlement is possible and we are open to that possibility.”
US regulators have settled with a number of energy companies following charges of attempted market manipulation. Earlier this month, for example, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing agreed to pay $28 million to settle CFTC charges that it manipulated the natural gas market between 2000 and 2002.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
EU states take the slow road to new cross-border services ban
Late national transposition hampers foreign banks’ decisions on location of affected activities
Don’t mention the rules: the fight against prediction market abuse
For the CFTC to regulate new venues effectively, it must first redefine insider trading
Can the US FRTB revamp make the IMA great again?
Banks are finally presented with a viable internal models framework under Basel III’s market risk rules
UK rethinking tougher capital rules for US bank subsidiaries
US endgame draft would trigger UK Basel III trap floor for foreign banks, but PRA is reviewing
EBA proposes drastic overhaul to supervisory data reporting
Revamp will cut back the number of datapoints and integrate overlapping reports
CFTC wants to regulate prediction markets. Is it up to the task?
Former officials echo state gambling authorities’ concerns over agency’s ability to police betting risks
EBA seeks to allay Simm divergence concerns
EU validator pledges to co-ordinate with global regulators, but retains ability to act alone “if needed”
FRTB models find salvation in US Basel III proposal
Changes to P&L attribution test and NMRFs make IMA viable for US banks, risk managers say