By Chad Silverman (January 10, 2019, 11:21 AM EST) -- Intent is the sine qua non of manipulation. Whether a particular trade is unlawful or proper can depend solely on the trader's intent at the time he makes the trade. For 30 years, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission followed a relatively straight course when bringing and resolving trading-based manipulation cases, applying the same standard of intent — an intent to create an artificial price. However, in CFTC v. Donald R. Wilson & DRW Investments LLC,[1] the CFTC appeared to diverge from its well-trodden path when it pushed an intent theory it had not previously publicly pursued. The commission alleged that trading for the purpose of "affecting price" was sufficient to render the trading unlawful. The court in DRW rejected the CFTC's theory, concluding that it was a bridge too far....
Law360 is on it, so you are, too.
A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.
