UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: 

Bank of America, N.A. and Merrill 

Lynch International, 

Respondents.

) 

) 

)

)

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CFTC Docket No. 23-58

ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 6(c) AND (d) OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, MAKING 

FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) has reason to 

believe that from at least 2015 to the present, (“Relevant Period”), Bank of America, N.A. 

(“BANA”) and Merrill Lynch International (“MLI”) (collectively “Respondents”), violated 

Sections 2(a)(13)(F)-(G) and 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(a)(13)(F)-(G), 6s(h)(1)(B), and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”) 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 

45.4, and 45.14, 17 C.F.R. §§ 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14 (2022)1

 promulgated 

thereunder. Therefore, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that 

public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted to determine whether 

Respondents engaged in the violations set forth herein and to determine whether any order 

should be issued imposing remedial sanctions. 

In anticipation of the institution of an administrative proceeding, Respondents have 

submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept. 

Respondents admit the facts set forth in Section II below, acknowledge that their conduct 

1

The Commission amended Parts 43, 45 and 49 of the Regulations on November 25, 2020. These amendments 

became effective January 25, 2021, but compliance was not required until May 25, 2022. . See Swap Data 

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 75503 (Nov. 25, 2020); Real-Time Public Reporting 

Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 75422 (Nov. 25, 2020); Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting 

Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 75601 (Nov. 25, 2020). The amendments do not affect the substantive requirements at 

issue in this Order. 
2 

violated the Act and Regulations and consent to the entry of this Order Instituting Proceedings 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) and (d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Making Findings, and 

Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), and acknowledge service of this Order.2

II. FINDINGS 

The Commission finds the following: 

A. SUMMARY 

 Reporting is at the heart of the Commission’s market and financial surveillance 

programs, which are critical to the Commission’s mission to protect market participants and 

promote market integrity. Accurate swap data is essential to the effective fulfillment of the 

regulatory functions of the Commission, including meaningful surveillance and enforcement 

programs. Moreover, the availability and accuracy of publicly published swap data is key to 

ensuring transparency into swap transactions, volumes, and pricing on a timely basis. 

 As provisionally registered swap dealers or registered swap dealers, Respondents are 

required to comply with certain reporting requirements related to their swap transactions. Since 

at least 2015, Respondents have failed to comply with certain swaps reporting obligations by 

under-reporting, over-reporting and misreporting millions of swaps to a swap data repository 

(“SDR”). These swap reporting failures were widespread and impacted five asset classes. 

Additionally, Respondents failed to establish an adequate supervisory system and diligently 

perform their supervisory duties with respect to their swaps reporting. Through this conduct 

Respondents violated Sections 2(a)(13)(F)-(G) and 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(a)(13)(F)-(G), 6s(h)(1)(B), and Regulations 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14, 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4 and 45.14 (2022). 

 In accepting Respondents’ Offer of Settlement, the Commission recognizes Respondents’ 

substantial cooperation during the Division of Enforcement’s (“Division”) investigation of this 

matter. The Commission also acknowledges Respondents’ representations concerning their 

remediation in connection with this matter. The Commission’s recognition of Respondents’ 

substantial cooperation and remediation is further reflected in the form of a reduced 

civil monetary penalty. 

B. RESPONDENTS 

Bank of America, N.A., is a registered swap dealer with a principal place of business in 

Charlotte, N.C. 

 

2Respondents agree that the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Order shall be taken as true and correct and 

be given preclusive effect without further proof in this proceeding and any other proceeding brought by the 

Commission or to which the Commission is a party or claimant, including but not limited to, a proceeding in 

bankruptcy or receivership. Respondents do not consent to the use of this Offer or the Order, or the findings or 

conclusions in the Order, by any other party in any other proceeding.
3 

Merrill Lynch International, is a registered swap deal with a principal place of business 

in London, UK. 

C. FACTS 

1. Swaps Reporting Violations 

During the Relevant Period, Respondents did not report millions of swap transactions as 

required by the Act and the Regulations. Respondents’ reporting failures during this period, 

which included failing to report, underreporting, and overreporting swap activities, along with 

other reporting of swap transactions in a manner inconsistent with Commission rules, violated 

the Act and the Regulations. 

Many of the impacted swaps involved allocations. Allocations are (normally) post-trade 

events where an agent allocates a portion of an executed swap to clients who are the actual 

counterparties to the original transaction. Regulation 45.1(a), 17 C.F.R. §45.1(a) (2022), defines 

“allocation” as: the process by which an agent, having facilitated a single swap transaction on 

behalf of several clients, allocates a portion of the executed swap to the clients. 

Additionally, the Regulations impose certain swap data creation responsibilities on the 

agent and the reporting counterparty which are to be reported to a single SDR, including Unique 

Transaction Identifiers (“UTI”)3

 for the initial swap and the identities of the reporting 

counterparty's actual counterparties resulting from allocation, as soon as technologically 

practicable after execution, but no later than eight business hours after execution. These 

requirements ensure that the primary economic terms reported to the SDR remain current and 

accurate during the life of the swap. 

In October 2016, as part of a central governance program, a trade documentation team 

providing multi-dealer coverage for Respondents identified an ongoing reporting issue 

concerning pre- and post-allocation swaps in their business. In particular, Respondents failed to 

ever report the following three fields for certain swaps involving allocations: allocation status, 

reference to pre-allocation Unique Swap Identifiers (“USIs”),4 and trading agent Legal Entity 

Identifiers (“LEIs”).5 Additionally, in some instances, Respondents failed to report preallocation trades. 

At the time they identified this reporting issue, Respondents have represented that they 

had intended to address remediation as part of the broader central governance program. As of 

July 2017, the identified swap allocation issue had not been addressed and Respondents decided 

that the issue would be remediated under a separate broader initiative. The central governance 

program thereafter stopped tracking the issue. However, the issues remained unremedied for at 

 

3

 Regulation 45.1 defines UTI as a unique alphanumeric identifier with a maximum length of 52 characters 

constructed solely from the upper-case alphabetic characters A to Z or the digits 0 to 9, inclusive in both cases, 

generated for each swap pursuant to § 45.5. 

4

 A USI is a unique identifier assigned to all swap transactions which identifies the transaction (the swap and its 

counterparties) uniquely throughout its duration. 

5

 Regulation 45.1 defines LEI as a unique code assigned to swap counterparties and entities in accordance with the 

standards set by the Global Legal Entity Identifier System. 
4 

least an additional two years. Neither did the trade documentation team nor anyone else report 

the swaps reporting deficiencies to any of the Respondents’ Chief Compliance Officers 

(“CCOs”) prior to Respondents receiving a request for information and documents from the 

Division in November 2019. 

In a December 2019 response to the Division’s request, Respondents disclosed, via their 

counsel, these swap reporting failures to the Division and admitted that Respondents had not 

remediated these issues since discovering them in October 2016. In this same response, 

Respondents also acknowledged that the reporting failure dated back to the establishment of the 

CFTC requirements. The Division’s investigation prompted Respondents to conduct internal 

reviews, which led them to uncover a multitude of other swap reporting issues, all of which were 

later reported to the Division. 

Throughout the investigation, Division Staff and Respondents’ counsel had numerous 

discussions in which counsel detailed Respondents’ ongoing review of their swap business 

activity, their discovery and identification of various swap reporting errors, the impacted asset 

classes, the root causes of these errors, their anticipated remediation efforts and their timeline for 

remedying the errors. Following each of these discussions, counsel memorialized the 

discussions in correspondence to Division Staff. In the course of their efforts, Respondents 

discovered, identified, and disclosed to the Division, over a period of time, 25 different swaps 

reporting issues affecting five asset classes, including their foreign exchange swaps, equity 

swaps, interest rate swaps, credit swaps and other swaps. Thus, during the Relevant Period, 

Respondents failed to report or correctly report to an SDR millions of swap transactions in 

violation of the swap reporting requirements of the Act and Regulations. Respondents’ reporting 

issues included, among others: 

 Reporting post- allocation trades as “unallocated” instead of pre- or postallocation; 

 Not properly matching post-allocation trades with the pre-allocation trade’s prior 

USIs; 

 Some trades were misreported when the allocation status field was erroneously 

reported as “Unallocated” instead of “Pre-Allocation;” 

 Allocated trades were reported with the UTI of the block trade instead of the USI 

of the block trade; 

 Post-allocation trades were reported without a prior USI upon experiencing a nonfinancial amendment; and 

Respondents did not timely report their errors or omissions to the Commission or an SDR 

in violation of the Act and Regulations. 

2. Failure to Supervise 

During the Relevant Period, Respondents did not provide adequate supervision to ensure 

that they complied, timely, with their swap dealer data activity and reporting obligations 

pursuant to the Act and Regulations. As reflected above, these failures to supervise the reporting 

activities of Respondents’ swap dealer business resulted in failure to report, or correctly report, 
5 

millions of swap transactions in violation of swap reporting provisions of the Act and 

Regulations. 

Moreover, Respondents knew or should have known they were not properly reporting, or 

failing to report, certain information regarding pre- and post-allocation swaps, including trading 

agent LEIs. From at least 2015 to October 2016, Respondents did not have an adequate system 

or program in place to detect their swap reporting failures. Moreover, after discovering their 

swap allocation reporting issue in October 2016, Respondents failed to remediate this issue until 

after November 2019 following the Division’s inquiry. Respondents’ supervision failures 

resulted in these violations persisting for years. Respondents failed to implement a program or 

adequate system to identify or remediate these failures. 

As Respondents began to remediate their swap reporting failures, they ultimately 

uncovered additional swaps reporting failures. In total, all of Respondents’ reporting failures 

impacted almost four million transactions in multiple asset classes. Respondents disclosed these 

failures during the Division’s investigation, along with their remediation efforts, and represented 

that they have enhanced their trade reporting control framework and quality assurance processes 

to identify their reporting failures. 

3. Respondents’ Cooperation 

Throughout the Division’s investigation, Respondents have provided substantial 

cooperation. Respondents’ cooperation included conducting a detailed analysis of historical 

records to assess the number of swap reporting violations during the Relevant Period. 

Additionally, Respondents provided oral and written communications on the nature of the issues 

and gave explanations of their calculations and replied to requests from the Division for 

clarification. Moreover, Respondents represent they have taken steps to remediate their swap 

reporting deficiencies described in this Order and improve their processes going forward. 

 

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION 

A. Respondents Failed to Accurately Report Swap Data in Violation of Section 

2(a)(13)(F)-(G) of the Act and Regulations 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14 

The Act states that, with regard to real-time data, “[p]arties to a swap . . . shall be 

responsible for reporting swap transaction information to the appropriate registered entity in a 

timely manner as may be prescribed by the Commission.” Section 2(a)(13)(F) of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(13)(F). The Act also requires data for each swap (whether cleared or uncleared) 

to be reported to a registered SDR. Section 2(a)(13)(G) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(13)(G). 

Pursuant to these requirements, the Commission adopted implementing swaps data reporting 

regulations, which apply to Respondents in their capacity as registered swap dealers. See, e.g., 

Parts 43 and 45 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R pts. 43 and 45 (2022). 
6 

Specifically, Regulation 43.3(a)(1) states that “[a] reporting counterparty . . . shall 

report . . . publicly reportable swap transaction[s] to a[n] . . . [SDR] as soon as technologically 

practicable after execution.”6

 Regulation 43.3(a)(1),17 C.F.R. § 43.3(a)(1) (2022). 

Regulations 45.3(b)(1), (f)(1), (f)(2)(ii) set forth the requirements for reporting creation 

and continuation data, including LEIs, among other fields. Regulation 45.3(b)(1), (f)(1) and 

(f)(2)(ii) requires swap creation data for swaps involving allocations. 17 C.F.R. §§ 45.3(b)(1), 

(f)(1), and (f)(2)(ii) (2020) (Amended 2021). 

Regulation 45.4(c)(1)(i) requires registered entities and swap counterparties to report 

continuation data for uncleared swaps, including the requirement to report life-cycle-event data. 

17 C.F.R. § 45.4(c)(1)(i) (2022). 

Regulation 45.14(a) states that each registered entity and swap counterparty “required by 

this part to report swap data to a swap data repository, to any other registered entity or swap 

counterparty, or to the Commission shall report any errors and omissions in the data so reported. 

Corrections of errors or omissions shall be reported as soon as technologically practicable after 

discovery of any such error or omission.” 17 C.F.R. § 45.14(a) (2020) (amended 2021). 

These swap data reporting regulations “were designed to enhance transparency, promote 

standardization, and reduce systemic risk.” In re ED&F Man Capital Mkts., Ltd., CFTC No. 22-

13, 2022 WL 827785, at *5 (Mar. 15, 2022) (consent order) (quoting In re Mizuho Capital Mkts. 

LLC, CFTC No. 21-17, 2021 WL 4501467, at *9 (Sept. 27, 2021) (consent order)). “Market 

participants rely upon the public availability of swap data for price discovery purposes.” In re 

Morgan Stanley Capital Servs. LLC, CFTC No. 20-78, 2020 WL 5876732, at *4 (Sept. 30, 2020) 

(consent order) (citations omitted). “The accuracy and completeness of swap reporting are 

critical to the Commission’s mission to protect market participants and to ensure market 

integrity.” Deutsche Bank, 2020 WL 4611985, at *8 (citing In re Société Générale Int’l Ltd., 

2019 WL 4915485, at *6 (collecting cases)). See also, In re NatWest Markets Plc, CFTC No. 

18-32, 2018 WL 4502270, at *2 (Sept. 14, 2018) (consent order); In re Citibank, NA., CFTC No. 

17-26, 2017 WL 4280594, at *2 (Sept. 25, 2017) (consent order); The Commission, in turn, 

requires complete and accurate reporting data to engage in meaningful oversight of the swaps 

market. Id. 

During the Relevant Period, Respondents failed to report accurately swap data in millions 

of transactions, including failing to report the allocation status of swaps, omitting references to 

pre-allocation USIs, and omitting trading agent LEIs. In other instances, and among the 

Respondents’ multiple reporting errors, Respondents incorrectly reported pre- or post-allocations 

as “unallocated,” omitted USIs from position reports for a particular SDR, and assigned identical 

USIs to certain trades. Prior to identifying these errors through their internal reviews and 

disclosing them to the Division, Respondents failed to report their errors or omissions to the 

 

6

 The phrase “as soon as technologically practicable” means “as soon as possible, taking into consideration the 

prevalence, implementation, and use of technology by comparable market participants.” Regulation 43.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 43.2 (2022). Moreover, in the preamble to Part 43, the Commission acknowledged that swap dealers are “more 

likely to have the infrastructure to report their swap transaction and pricing data to an SDR faster than other 

categories of market participants.” Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data,77 Fed. Reg. 1182, 1191 

(Jan. 9, 2012). 
7 

Commission or an SDR. Respondents’ errors and omissions resulting in swap trades being 

underreported, overreported or not reported at all, violated Section 2(a)(13)(F)-(G) of the Act 

and Regulations 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14. 

B. Respondents’ Failure to Diligently Supervise their Swap Dealer Business Violated 

Section 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act and Regulation 23.602 

Section 4s(h)(l)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §6s(h)(1)(B), requires, in relevant part, “diligent 

supervision of the business of the registered swap dealer . . . .” Regulation 23.602(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 23.602(a) (2022), implements the supervision requirements of Section 4s(h)(1) of the Act. 

Regulation 23.602 requires that swap dealers “establish and maintain a system to 

supervise, and shall diligently supervise, all activities relating to its business performed by its 

partners, members, officers, employees, and agents (or persons occupying a similar status or 

similar function). Such system shall be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the 

requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations.” 

Under Regulation 23.602, the failure to diligently supervise the swap dealer’s activities, 

as evidenced by repeated violations, or by violations that are not promptly corrected, is sufficient 

to establish a failure to supervise violation. See, e.g., In re Commerzbank AG, CFTC No. 19-03, 

2018 WL 5921385 at *12 (Nov. 8. 2018) (consent order). The operative language of Regulation 

23.602 is similar to the language of the Commission’s longstanding supervision regulation for 

futures and options, Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2021). Under Regulation 166.3, when 

the registrant fails to perform its supervisory duties diligently, that fact alone is sufficient to 

establish a violation of the supervision requirement. See, e.g., In re Murlas Commodities, Inc., 

CFTC No. 85-29, 1995 WL 523563, at *9 (Sept. 1, 1995); In re Paragon Futures Ass’n, CFTC 

No. 88-18, 1992 WL 74261, at *14 (Apr. 1, 1992). Evidence of violations that “should be 

detected by a diligent system of supervision, either because of the nature of the violations or 

because the violations have occurred repeatedly” is probative of a failure to supervise. Paragon 

Futures, 1992 WL 74261, at *14. 

As detailed above, Respondents knew in October 2016 that they were not correctly 

reporting certain pre- and post-allocation swaps . In July 2017, Respondents again realized that 

they had not remediated their reporting failures. Despite their intention to remediate the issue by 

separating it from their central governance program, they neither took further steps to remediate 

those failings, nor did they report their swap reporting failures to their respective CCOs. In 

November 2019, as a result of the Division’s request for information, Respondents again realized 

that they had not remedied their swap reporting failures. For a period of more than three years, 

between October 2016 and November 2019, Respondents were aware of their swap reporting 

failures but did not take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with their reporting requirements 

pursuant to the Act and Regulations. 

During the Relevant Period, Respondents failed to have adequate systems in place to 

detect their swaps reporting failures, which they only discovered after the Division’s inquiry 

which then prompted Respondents to conduct analyses of their swap business. This ultimately 

resulted in the discovery of 25 swap reporting issues affecting millions of swap transactions. By 

failing to diligently supervise their swap dealer activities, and by failing to inform their CCOs of 
8 

their ongoing swap dealer reporting failures, Respondents violated Section 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act 

and Regulation 23.602. 

IV. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that, during the Relevant Period, 

Respondents violated Sections 2(a)(13)(F)-(G) and 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 2(a)(13)(F)-(G), 6s(h)(1)(B), and Regulations 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14, 17 

C.F.R. §§ 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14 (2022). 

V. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT 

 Respondents have submitted this Offer in which they: 

A. Acknowledge service of this Order; 

B. Admit the facts described in Section II above and acknowledge that their conduct 

 violated the Act and Regulations; 

C. Admit the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to all matters set forth in this 

 Order and for any action or proceeding brought or authorized by the Commission based 

 on violation of or enforcement of this Order; 

D. Waive: 

a. The filing and service of a complaint and notice of hearing; 

b. A hearing; 

c. All post-hearing procedures; 

d. Judicial review by any court; 

e. Any and all objections to the participation by any member of the Commission’s 

staff in the Commission’s consideration of the Offer; 

f. Any and all claims that they may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 504 and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, (2012) and/or the rules promulgated by the 

Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. 

pt. 148 (2018), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; 

g. Any and all claims that they may possess under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (“SBREFA”), Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, 

§§ 201–253, 110 Stat. 847, 857–74 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 

5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; and 
9 

h. Any claims of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this proceeding or the 

entry in this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty (“CMP 

Obligation”) or any other relief, including this Order; 

E. Stipulate that the record basis on which this Order is entered shall consist solely of the 

findings contained in this Order to which Respondents have consented in the Offer;

F. Consent, solely on the basis of the Offer, to the Commission’s entry of this Order that: 

a. Makes findings by the Commission that Respondents violated Sections 2(a)(13)(F) 

-(G) and 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(a)(13)(F)-(G), 6s(h)(1)(B), and 

Regulations 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4 and 45.14, 17 C.F.R. §§ 23.602(a), 43.3, 

45.3, 45.4, and 45.14 (2022); 

b. Orders Respondents to cease and desist from violating Sections 2(a)(13)(F)-(G), 

and 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act, and Regulations 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14; 

c. Orders Respondents to pay a CMP Obligation in the amount of eight million 

dollars ($8,000,000.00), plus post-judgment interest within ten days of the date of 

entry of this Order. If the CMP Obligation is not paid in full within ten days of the 

date of entry of the Order, then post- judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP 

Obligation beginning on the date of entry of the Order and shall be determined by 

using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of the Order pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1961; 

d. Orders Respondents and their successors and assigns to comply with the conditions 

and undertakings consented to in the Offer and as set forth in Part VI of this Order; 

and 

G. Represents that Respondents have already taken remedial action to comply with the Act 

and Regulations including, but not limited to, the following: 

a. Enhancing its swap data reporting systems to provide for compliant data 

reporting; 

b. Enhancing swap data reporting controls to monitor for complete, timely, and 

accurate swap data reporting; 

c. Enhancing relevant policies and/or procedures relating to swap data reporting; 

and 

d. Proactively identifying and remediating issues disclosed to the Division, 

including back-reporting of certain pre- and post-allocation swaps. 

Upon consideration, the Commission has determined to accept the Offer. 
10 

VI. ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

A. Respondents and their successors and assigns shall cease and desist from violating 

Sections 2(a)(13)(F)-(G) and 4s(h)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(a)(13)(F)-(G), 

6s(h)(1)(B), and Regulations 23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14, 17 C.F.R. §§ 

23.602(a), 43.3, 45.3, 45.4, and 45.14 (2022). 

B. Respondents shall pay, jointly and severally, a CMP Obligation in the amount of eight 

million dollars ($8,000,000.00). If the CMP Obligation is not paid in full within ten days 

of the date of entry of this Order, then post-judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP 

Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this Order and shall be determined by using 

the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961 (2018). 

Respondents shall pay the CMP Obligation and any post-judgment interest by electronic 

funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank 

money order. If payment is to be made other than by electronic funds transfer, then the 

payment shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent 

to the address below: 

CFTC 

C/O ESC/AMK-326; RM 265 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

(405) 954-6569 office 

(405) 954-1620 fax 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

 If payment is to be made by electronic funds transfer, Respondents shall contact Tonia 

King or her successor at the above address to receive payment instructions and shall fully 

comply with those instructions. Respondents shall accompany payment of the CMP 

Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the paying Respondents and the name and 

docket number of this proceeding. The paying Respondents shall simultaneously 

transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20581. 

C. Respondents and their successors, and assigns shall comply with the following conditions 

and undertakings set forth in the Offer: 

1. Public Statements: Respondents agree that neither they nor any of their

successors and assigns, agents, or employees under their authority or control shall 

take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any 

findings or conclusions in this Order or creating, or tending to create, the 

impression that this Order is without a factual basis; provided, however, that 
11 

nothing in this provision shall affect Respondents’: (i) testimonial obligations; or 

(ii) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to which the Commission is 

not a party. Respondents and their successors, and assigns shall comply with this 

agreement, and shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of their agents 

and/or employees under their authority or control understand and comply with 

this agreement. 

2. Partial Satisfaction: Respondents understand and agree that any acceptance by 

the Commission of any partial payment of Respondents’ CMP Obligation shall 

not be deemed a waiver of their obligation to make further payments pursuant to 

this Order, or a waiver of the Commission’s right to seek to compel payment of 

any remaining balance. 

3. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Respondents satisfy in full their

CMP Obligation as set forth in this Order, Respondents shall provide written 

notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to their telephone 

number or their mailing address within ten calendar days of the change.

4. Remediation: Respondents will continue to undertake extensive remedial 

measures, including measures to implement and strengthen their internal controls 

and procedures relating to swaps reporting and related supervision of their swap 

dealer business. With respect to their remediation efforts to the extent not already 

undertaken (see supra Section V.G.), Respondents undertake that:

a. Respondents will continue to implement and improve their internal controls 

and procedures in a manner reasonably designed to ensure compliance with 

Commission Regulations relating to swaps reporting; 

b. As part of their efforts to comply with Parts 43 and 45 of the Regulations, 

Respondents’ remediation improvements will include: 

 Performing further review, as necessary, of their current trade 

reporting practices with respect to: (i) information and data 

requirements under Parts 43 and 45 of the Regulations; (ii) data quality 

and accuracy; and (iii) reporting trades as soon as technologically 

practicable as required under Parts 43 and 45 of the Regulations; 

 Further enhancing, as necessary, their existing operating procedures in 

a manner reasonably designed to ensure that, where Respondents are 

the reporting party, they report: (i) all information and data as 

required under Parts 43 and 45 of the Regulations; (ii) data that 

accurately reflects trades; and (iii) trades as soon as technologically 

practicable as required under Parts 43 and 45 of the Regulations; 

 Further enhancing, as necessary, their trade reporting control 

framework and quality assurance processes, including monitoring and 

escalating trade reporting exceptions;