DOCSLIB.ORG

Commodity Futures Trading Commission COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT of 1974

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commodity Futures Trading Commission COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT of 1974 Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT Commodity Futures Trading Commission COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT OF 1974 TITLE: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT OF 1974 DOCUMENT TYPE: HOUSE REPORT DOCUMENT NUMBER: 93-975 DATE: APRIL 4, 1974 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT OF 1974 93D CONGRESS 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT No. 93-975 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT OF 1974 REPORT Together With MINORITY VIEWS AND ADDITIONAL MINORITY VIEWS ON H.R. 13113 A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE REGULATION OF FUTURES TRADING, TO BRING ALL AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER COMMODITIES TRADED ON EX- CHANGES UNDER REGULATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES APRIL 4, 1974. -- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1974 30-443 See original document-page 1 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE W. R. POAGE, Texas, Chairman Page 2 FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky, Vice Chairman THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington E DE LA GARZA, Texas JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, Pennsylvania WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina B. F. SISK, California BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas JOHN R. RARICK, Louisiana ED JONES, Tennessee JOHN MELCHER, Montana DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia BOB BERGLAND, Minnesota FRANK E. DENHOLM, South Dakota SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi CHARLES ROSE, North Carolina JERRY LITTON, Missouri BILL GUNTER, Florida WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, Virginia Ranking Minority Member GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania ROBERT B. MATHIAS, California WILEY MAYNE, Iowa JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota ROBERT D. PRICE, Texas KEITH G. SEBELIUS, Kansas WILMER D. MIZELL, North Carolina PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois LAMAR BAKER, Tennessee CHARLES THONE, Nebraska STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho EDWARD YOUNG, South Carolina JAMES P. JOHNSON, Colorado EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois FOWLER C. WEST, Staff Director JOHN F. O'NEAL, General Counsel HYDE H. MURRAY, Associate Counsel JOHN RAINBOLT, Associate Counsel L. T. EASLEY, Press Assistant See original document-page 2 "The exchanges in many parts of the country which deal in securities and commodities conduct, of course, a na- tional business because their customers live in every part of the country. The managers of these exchanges have it is true, often taken steps to correct certain obvious abuses. We must be certain that abuses are eliminated, and to this end a broad policy of national regulation is required. "It is my belief that exchanges for dealing in securities and commodities are necessary and of definite value to our commercial and agricultural life. Nevertheless, it should be our national policy to restrict, as far as possible, the use of these exchanges for purely speculative operations." Franklin D. Roosevelt Page 3 78 Cong. Rec. 2264 (1934.) (Message from the President) See original document-page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Purpose ................................................................. 1 Summary of H.R. 13113 .................................................. 2 Section by Section ..................................................... 5 Committee Intent ...................................................... 19 Need ................................................................... 33 I Background .......................................................... 33 II Federal Regulation of Futures Trading 34 III Inadequacy of Existing Law 36 Specific Problem Areas ............................................... 39 Committee Consideration ................................................ 53 Departmental Position .................................................. 72 Current and Five Subsequent Year Cost Estimate ......................... 85 Changes in Existing Law ................................................ 86 Appendix I -- The Trading of Futures .................................. 129 Appendix II -- Additional Data Relating to the Commodity Futures Trading .............................................................. 157 Commission ............................................................ 158 Appendix III -- Glossary of Industry Terms ............................ 161 Minority Views of Mr. Price (Tex.), Mr. Baker (Tenn.), Mr. Symms (Idaho), and Mr. Young (S.C.) ........................................ 165 Additional Minority Views of Mr. Goodling (Pa.) and Mr. Baker (Tenn.) .. 167 See original document-page 4 93D CONGRESS 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT No. 93-975 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ACT OF 1974 APRIL 4, 1974. -- Committed to the Committee of the While House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. POAGE, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following REPORT together with MINORITY VIEWS AND ADDITONAL MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 13113] The Committee on Agriculture to which was referred the bill (H.R. 13113) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to strengthen the regulation of futures trading, to bring all agricultural and other commodities traded on exchanges un- Page 4 der regulation, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION H.R. 13113 is major legislation strengthening the federal regulation of the nation's 400 billion dollar commodity futures trading industry. It provides the first complete overhaul of the Commodity Exchange Act since its inception, and proposes a comprehensive regulatory structure to oversee the volatile and esoteric futures trading complex. H.R. 13113 is a considered approach toward solving both immediate and readily perceivable problems besetting futures markets, and makes several major changes in the role of the Federal Government in regulating all futures trading enterprises. H.R. 13113 is the result of a labor by the Committee on Agriculture that began in August 1973, proceeded through two complete sets of Committee hearings, and the formation of a special ad hoc subcommittee for the drafting of a pre- decessor bill (H.R. 11955). H.R. 13113 is a so-called "clean" bill, embodying the more than fifty changes made by the Committee in H.R. 11955. The Committee believes that, properly implemented, the bill will provide the basis for a stronger futures industry and a stronger economy, See original document-page 5 where producer, merchant, trader, businessman and ultimate consumer of commodities will have access to or benefit from a powerful and responsible economic phenomena that commands deserved respect for the role it plays in the lives of businessmen, producers and consumers in every nation of the world. SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR PROVISIONS OF H.R. 13113, A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMODITY EX- CHANGE ACT, MARCH 1974 The bill is drafted in the form of amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and contains four titles. Title I creates a new five man regulatory commission with certain administrative ties to the Department of Agricul- ture to be called the "Commodity Futures Trading Commission" -- consisting of four public members and the Secretary of Agriculture or his designee. The four public members of the Commission will be appointed by the President from the general public and confirmed by the Senate. Any of the five members of the Commission can be separately nomi- nated by the President as Chairman of the Commission, although such nomination would be subject to separate Senate approval. No more than two of the public members shall be of the same political party. The public members will be appointed for staggered five-year terms and will be compensated at Executive Level IV on a per diem basis for the time they spend in the performance of their official activities. Commission members and staff of the Commission are pro- hibited from participating directly or indirectly in any market operation or transaction subject to regulation by the Commission. The Commission will be allowed to utilize the facilities and services of the Department of Agriculture, at cost, including adequate office space if available. The Commission will be required to meet as often as necessary but not less than one regular meeting per month. Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman or any two members of the Commission. All existing authority under the Commodity Exchange Act presently delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Commodity Exchange Commission will be transferred to the new CFTC. All existing personnel of the CEA will be transferred to and become employees of the CFTC. Provision is made for a Secretary to the Commission, who will be responsible directly to the Commission members. The CFTC is authorized to hire consultants and to contract on its own authority with respect to matters necessary to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act. Certain responsi- bilities of the Commission may be delegated to CFTC staff, including an Executive Director who will perform the day to day functions of the operation of the Commission under the direction of the members of the Commission. In addi- tion, the Commission will have its own General Counsel and legal staff as well as independent budgeting capability and its own Administrative Law Judges. Commission budgets are to be independent products of the Commission (subject to OMB) but will be forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture for transmittal purposes only in the Department of Agri- culture's budget requests. Provision is made for GAO access to books and records of the Commission. Page 5 A customer reparation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives
    Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives 115TH CONGRESS EDITION Cooperative Information Report 66 Rural Business-Cooperative Service United States Department of Agriculture Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives 115TH CONGRESS EDITION Revised August 2017 Federal Statutes of Special Importance to Farmer Cooperatives provides a single, readily available source of laws that address how cooperatives conduct their business. It was originally compiled by Donald A. Frederick and LaTonya St. Clair, and includes all references to cooperatives in Federal law that are significant to cooperatives. This update reflects laws that are current as of August 2017. Several of the citations in the compilation pay deference to popular convention. In the antitrust portion of the report, the section number at the start of each provision is the number in the original act; the U.S. Code uses the codified section number found in parentheses ( ) throughout. Also, the laws in the antitrust section are presented in chronological order by date of enactment; in other sections the laws are arranged in numerical order by title and section, as they appear in the Code. The headers, which appear in bold letters, are those Federal Statutes of Special Importance that appear in the official Code. to Farmer Cooperatives (Cooperative Information Report 65) was originally If you would like to suggest any materials that could be added compiled by Donald A. Frederick and to make the report more useful or if you have found any LaTonya St. Clair in 1990 and was last errors, please contact Meegan Moriarty at Rural Business updated in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation
    The Political Dynamics of Derivative Securities Regulation Roberta Romanot The U.S. regulation of derivative securities--financial instruments whose value is derived from an underlying security or index of securities-is distinctive from that (~f other nations because it has multiple regulators for .financial derivatives and securities. Commentators have debated whether shifting to the unitary regulator approach taken by other nations would be more desirable and legislation to effect such a ~:hange has been repeatedly introduced in Congress. But it has not gotten very far. This article analyzes the political history of the regulation of derivative securities in the United States, in order to explain the institutional difference between the U.S. regime and other nations' and its staying power. It examines the j;JUr principal federal regulatory initiatives regarding derivative securities (the Future Trading Act of 1921, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974, and the Futures Trading Practices Act (if 1992), by a narrative account of the legislative process and a quantitative analysis (~f roll-call votes, committee-hearing witnesses, and issue salience. The multiple regulator status quo has persisted, despite dramatic changes in derivative markets, repeated efforts to alter it (by the securities industry in particular) and sh(fting political majorities, because of its support by the committee organization of Congress and by a tripartite winning coalition (if interest groups created by the 1974 legislation (farmers, futures exchanges, and banks). In what can best be ascribed to historical j;Jrtuity, different .financial market regulators are subject to the oversight (~f different congressional committees, and, consequently, the establishment (~f a unitary regulator would diminish the jurisdiction, and hence influence, ()f one (if the congressional committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Secretary, USDA § 2.28
    § 1c.121 7 CFR Subtitle A (1–1–21 Edition) agency through such officers and em- § 1c.124 Conditions. ployees of the Federal department or With respect to any research project agency and such experts and consult- or any class of research projects the de- ants as the department or agency head partment or agency head of either the determines to be appropriate. This conducting or the supporting Federal evaluation will take into consideration department or agency may impose ad- the risks to the subjects, the adequacy ditional conditions prior to or at the of protection against these risks, the time of approval when in the judgment potential benefits of the research to of the department or agency head addi- the subjects and others, and the impor- tional conditions are necessary for the tance of the knowledge gained or to be protection of human subjects. gained. (b) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AU- approve or disapprove the application THORITY BY THE SECRETARY OF or proposal, or enter into negotiations AGRICULTURE AND GENERAL OF- to develop an approvable one. FICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT § 1c.121 [Reserved] Subpart A—General § 1c.122 Use of Federal funds. Sec. 2.1 Establishment of the Department. Federal funds administered by a Fed- 2.2 Authority of the Secretary to prescribe eral department or agency may not be regulations. expended for research involving human 2.3 Authority of the Secretary to delegate subjects unless the requirements of authority. this policy have been satisfied. 2.4 General officers.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet
    ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet To cite this version: Thomas Delcey, Guillaume Noblet. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”: A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics. 2021. hal-03227973 HAL Id: hal-03227973 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03227973 Preprint submitted on 17 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ”The Eyes and Ears of the Agricultural Markets”∗ A History of Information in Interwar Agricultural Economics Delcey, Thomas† Noblet, Guillaume‡ May 2021 Abstract This article offers a historical analysis of the contributions of U.S. interwar agri- cultural economics to the economics of information. Concerned with improving the circulation of information on agricultural markets, agricultural economists an- alyzed the relationship between agents’ information and the behavior of prices on agricultural commodity exchanges, thus anticipating modern debates on informa- tional efficiency. We show that these debates were part of a more general context of agricultural market reform led by the U.S. administration to improve the pro- duction and diffusion of economic information. We argue that such reforms were a prerequisite for theoretical discussions on information, and established institutional tools that are still active today, such as the USDA market news service.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Crop Insurance Act.Xml
    Q:\COMP\AGMISC\75-30 - Agricultural Adjustment Act Of 1938 & Federal Crop Insurance Act.xml 1–3 75-30 - Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 & Fed... Sec. 2 TITLE V—CROP INSURANCE Subtitle A—Federal Crop Insurance Act Sec. 501. Short title and application of other provisions. Sec. 502. Purpose and definitions. Sec. 503. Creation of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. Sec. 504. Capital stock. Sec. 505. Management of Corporation. Sec. 506. General powers. Sec. 507. Personnel. Sec. 508. Crop insurance. Sec. 508A. Double insurance and prevented planting. Sec. 509. Indemnities exempt from levy. Sec. 510. Deposit of funds. Sec. 511. Tax exemption. Sec. 512. Fiscal agency of government. Sec. 513. Accounting by Corporation. Sec. 514. Crimes and offenses. Sec. 515. Program compliance and integrity. Sec. 516. Funding. Sec. 517. Separability. Sec. 518. Agricultural commodity. Sec. 520. Producer eligibility. Sec. 521. Ineligibility for catastrophic risk and noninsured assistance payments. Sec. 522. Research and development. Sec. 523. Pilot programs. Sec. 524. Education and risk management assistance. Subtitle B—Supplemental Agricultural Disaster Assistance Sec. 531. Supplemental agricultural assistance.disaster an adequate and balanced flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, ø7 U.S.C. 1281¿ That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938’’. TITLE V—CROP INSURANCE Subtitle A— Federal Crop Insurance Act SEC. 501. ø7 U.S.C. 1501¿ SHORT TITLE AND APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS. This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Crop Insurance Act’’.
    [Show full text]
  • Manipulation of Commodity Futures Prices-The Unprosecutable Crime
    Manipulation of Commodity Futures Prices-The Unprosecutable Crime Jerry W. Markhamt The commodity futures market has been beset by large-scale market manipulations since its beginning. This article chronicles these manipulations to show that they threaten the economy and to demonstrate that all attempts to stop these manipulations have failed. Many commentators suggest that a redefinition of "manipulation" is the solution. Markham argues that enforcement of a redefined notion of manipulation would be inefficient and costly, and would ultimately be no more successful than earlierefforts. Instead, Markham arguesfor a more active Commodity Futures Trading Commission empowered not only to prohibit certain activities which, broadly construed, constitute manipulation, but also to adopt affirmative regulations which will help maintain a 'fair and orderly market." This more powerful Commission would require more resources than the current CFTC, but Markham argues that the additionalcost would be more than offset by the increasedefficiencies of reduced market manipulation. Introduction ......................................... 282 I. Historical Manipulation in the Commodity Futures Markets ..... 285 A. The Growth of Commodity Futures Trading and Its Role ..... 285 B. Early Manipulations .............................. 288 C. The FTC Study Reviews the Issue of Manipulation ......... 292 D. Early Legislation Fails to Prevent Manipulations .......... 298 II. The Commodity Exchange Act Proves to Be Ineffective in Dealing with M anipulation .................................. 313 A. The Commodity Exchange Authority Unsuccessfully Struggles with M anipulation ................................ 313 B. The 1968 Amendments Seek to Address the Manipulation Issue. 323 C. The 1968 Amendments Prove to be Ineffective ............ 328 tPartner, Rogers & Wells, Washington, D.C.; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; B.S. 1969, Western Kentucky University; J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • FULL THESIS 19 September
    The United States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-1936 Rasheed KM Saleuddin Corpus Christi College September 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. i ii The Unites States Federal Government and the Making of Modern Futures Markets, 1920-36 Rasheed Saleuddin In 1921, 1924 and 1929-1934, markets for the future delivery of wheat went through periods of extreme volatility and/or significant depression, and in all three cases there were significant and long-lasting changes to both the institutional and regulatory framework of these Chicago- dominated grain markets. There was no real change after these key reforms until 1974, while indeed much of the original regulatory and market innovation remains. The result of the severe depression of 1921 was the Futures Trading Act of 1921. In 1924-25, the so-called ‘Cutten corner’ market turmoil was followed by three key institutional innovations brought about in 1926 by US federal government coercion of the grain futures trading industry in collusion with industry leaders. The Great Depression gave birth to the 1936 Commodity Exchange Act. This Act was based on research done by the government and/or with government-mandated evidence that essentially saw the small grain gambler as needing protection from the grain futures industry, and was pushed through by a coalition of farmers’ organisations and the agency responsible for the 1922 Act’s administration. The government demanded information that was begrudgingly provided, and the studies of this data formed the basis of a political and intellectual justification of the usefulness of futures markets to the marketing of farm products that influenced the Act of 1936 and – more importantly - continues to today.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT of 1982 (PART 1) DO
    Page 1 1 of 2 DOCUMENTS Commodity Futures Trading Commission FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 TITLE: FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 (PART 1) DOCUMENT TYPE: HOUSE REPORT DOCUMENT NUMBER: 97-565 (PART 1) DATE: MAY 17, 1982 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 97TH CONGRESS 2D Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPT. 97-565 Part 1 FUTURES TRADING ACT OF 1982 MAY 17, 1982. -- Ordered to be printed Mr. DE LA GARZA, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the following REPORT together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS AND SEPARATE VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 5447] [Including Congressional Budget Office cost estimate] The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5447), to extend the Commodity Exchange Act, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. See original document-page 1 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Committee Amendment 4 Summary of H.R. 5447 25 Purpose and Need for the Legislation 36 I. Extension of Funding Authorization 36 II. CFTC/SEC Jurisdictional Accord 38 III. National Futures Association/User Fees 41 IV. Expanded Role for the States 44 V. Interagency Coordination 45 VI. Agricultural Options 47 VII. Regulatory Powers and Enforcement 47 (a) Extension of Registration Requirements 48 (b) Streamlining Registration Procedures 50 (c) Framework for Delegation of the Registration Function 52 (d) Enforcement 52 VIII. Remedies for Violations of the Act 54 (a) General 54 (b) Reparations 55 (c) Arbitration 56 (d) Private Rights of Action 56 IX. Commission Emergency Powers 57 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture (AIB-425)
    A. 2 '/^i> 'è ^¿^ //?^{S United States i)] Department of ^"' Agriculture Chronological Economics Research Service Landmarks In Agriculture Information Bulletin American Number 425 Agriculture It's Easy To Order Another Copy! Just dial 1-800»999"6779. Toll free (in the United States and Canada). An other areas pïease dial 301-725-7937. Ask for Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture (AIB-425). The cost is $11.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (including Canada), add 25 percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard, or we can bill you. Or send a check or purchase order (made payable to ERS-NASS) to: ERS-NASS P.O. Box 1608 Rockville, MD 20849-1608. We'll fill your order by first-class mail. Revised version, Washington, DC November 1990 CHRONOLOGICAL LANDMARKS IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURE Compiled by Maryanna S. Smith and Dennis M, Roth INTRODUCTION This chronology lists major events in the history of U.S. agriculture. A source to which the reader may turn for additional information on the subject is included with most of the events. Generally, each source appears only once, although it may apply to more than one chronological citation. The reader interested in a particular subject can compile a short bibliography by consulting each citation for that subject. Key inventions, laws, changes in land policies, individuals, contributions, the development of institutions, and the introduction of new types of crops and livestock are included. There are also notes on all commissioners, secretaries of agriculture, and agencies established in response to new programs in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Immunities of Cooperative Associations
    ANTITRUST IMMUNITIES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS JOHN HANNA* Cooperative associations other than agricultural are subject to the same rules on restraint of trade as other corporations.1 Agricultural cooperatives in their normal marketing and purchasing activities have nothing to fear from state antitrust legis- lation. Without any exemption in federal antitrust laws, the state and federal legislative approval of farm cooperatives, expressing a widespread public confidence in the utility of cooperative enterprise, would likely have induced the courts to conclude that the slight and incidental restraints on trade by agricultural associations in their normal operations are not unreasonable. To make this certain, agricul- tural producers' cooperatives are granted a degree of immunity by the Clayton Act, the Capper-Volstead Act, and the Robinson-Patman Act. This immunity is not ab- solute, but so long as the agricultural associations conduct themselves with some sense of responsibility and refrain from conspiring with non-agricultural interests, the antitrust laws need not be of much concern to those who formulate the policies of the associations. This .conclusion could have been and was reached by most students of agricultural cooperatives during the rapid expansion from 192o to X930, and requires no modification today. Farmers expressed their sense of economic insecurity during the latter part of the nineteenth century, and later, by enthusiastically aiding in the passage of state antitrust laws and the Sherman Act. They tried, sometimes successfully, to have their own organizations exempted from the penal provisions of these statutes. Where they were unsuccessful they often found that their first feeble attempts at coopera- tive action were held to be illegal, while the enlargement of business units con- tinued with only minor setbacks.2 Where they were successful the outcome in *A.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Re Ulati N F the U~S~ D Arketin Stem
    Minnesota Economic FEDERAL RE ULATI N Regulation Monograph 4 F THE U~S~ D ARKETIN STEM Miscellaneous Report AD-MRm2338 Agricultural Experiment Station University of Minnesota 1985 FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE U.S. FOOD MARKETING SYSTEM Tim Burke and Dale C. Dahl Minnesota Economic Regulation Monograph #4 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Report AD-MR-2338 University of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota February 1985 FOREWORD This monograph is part of the Minnesota Economic Regulation Monograph series, a comprehensive survey of law pertaining to the production, processing and distribution of food and other farm comr modities in the United States. It outlines two types of regulations: (1) those designed to protect the health and safety of consumers and improve their knowledge about food purchasing; and (2) those that protect the farmer's product and input markets, particularly in terms of trade practices and bargaining power. Dale c. Dahl Project Leader CONTENTS Preface. vii Chapter 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. 1 Development of American Food Laws in the Nineteenth Century 1 Evolution of the Major Federal Acts • 1 Federal Food and Drugs Act of 1906 • 2 Packers and Stockyards Act • 3 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 3 Notes to Chapter 1. 4 Chapter 2. CONSUMER-ORIENTED REGULATION • 7 Major Legislation • 7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act • 7 Structure of the Act. 7 Relevant Definitions. 7 General Provisions. 7 Special Provisions. 10 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. 11 Basic Provisions. 12 Enforcement Authority • 13 Poison Prevention Packaging Act. 13 Inspection Acts • 14 Federal Meat Inspection Act. 14 Basic Provisions. 14 Personal Exemption. 15 Imported and Exported Meat.
    [Show full text]
  • Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense
    Fordham Law Review Volume 56 Issue 3 Article 3 1987 Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense Wendy Collins Perdue Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Wendy Collins Perdue, Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense, 56 Fordham L. Rev. 345 (1987). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol56/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Manipulation of Futures Markets: Redefining the Offense Cover Page Footnote * Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. The author is grateful to Richard Diamond and Thomas Krattenmaker for their valuable suggestions and to Robert Webner for his research assistance. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol56/iss3/3 MANIPULATION OF FUTURES MARKETS: REDEFINING THE OFFENSE WENDY COLLINS PERDUE* INTRODUCTION N September 1984, a group of farmers collected in front of the Chi- cago Board of Trade ("CBOT") to protest low farm prices and to urge the criminalization of futures trading.1 They argued that speculating in commodity futures was "manipulative and improper."2 This type of pro- test is not unusual.' Futures markets have existed in this country for over 100 years,4 and, for as long as they have existed, have been the object of protest, suspicion and contempt.' Critics have condemned fu- tures trading as nothing more than a form of legalized gambling,6 have * Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
    [Show full text]