In the Matter of Fenchurch Capital Management, Ltd.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
CFTC Docket No. 96-7 (1996)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Fenchurch Capital Management, Ltd. (Fenchurch) (defendant) was registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (plaintiff) as a commodity trading advisor and commodity pool operator. In June 1993, Fenchurch held large futures positions in June 1993 ten-year treasury notes, giving it the right to collect such notes on the delivery date of June 30. The terms of the futures allowed for delivery of any treasury note that met certain characteristics. At the time, the cheapest-to-deliver note was the 8.5 percent February 15, 2000, treasury note. The market price of the futures contracts purchased by Fenchurch, accordingly, reflected the value of the 8.5 percent notes in the cash market. As the delivery date neared, Fenchurch accumulated a substantial portion of the available supply of 8.5 percent notes. By creating scarcity in the 8.5 percent notes market, Fenchurch stood to receive 8.875 percent notes, the next-cheapest available note. This increased the value of Fenchurch’s futures positions substantially, benefiting Fenchurch and the commodity pools that Fenchurch managed. The CFTC brought an administrative action against Fenchurch based on alleged violations of §§ 6(c) and 9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.