Mirant settles price-reporting charges
Atlanta-based energy company Mirant has settled charges with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of false reporting of natural gas prices.
MAEM elected to settle with the CFTC to avoid the expense, distraction and risk of litigation and enable the company’s resources to remain fully focused on Chapter 11 emergence, said Doug Miller, Mirant’s general counsel.
Under the terms of the settlement, MAEM neither admitted nor denied the allegations that its employees reported false information in an attempt to manipulate pricing.
The false reports submitted by MAEM included false price, volume and/or counterparty information concerning natural gas cash transactions, as well as information concerning fictitious trades and/or trades observed in the market, alleged the CFTC. The information could have affected prices of New York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures contracts, added the commission.
Price and volume information is used by price compilers to calculate published indexes of natural gas prices for various natural gas hubs throughout the US. The price compilers in this case were Gas Daily, Inside Ferc and Natural Gas Intelligence.
In 2002, Mirant had reviewed and amended its external reporting process following industry-wide natural gas reporting problems, said Miller. MAEM now requires all data provided to indexes to be validated and conveyed by risk management staff reporting to the company’s chief risk officer, rather than by MAEM personnel, he added.
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
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
US blows the floors off Basel III
Barr criticises “downward deviations” in US rule; Bowman rejects “blind adherence” to global standards