Watch Where You Put That Comma, Barney
I had a chance to read Judge Wilkins’s decision in the position limits litigation on a flight over to London, where I am speaking on the impact of financial regulation, at a conference put on by Lloyds Bank.
There is virtually no economics in the opinion-it is a highly technical analysis of issues related to administrative procedure, statutory interpretation, and the like. The perfect thing to read while trying to get sleepy as part of my jet lag management strategy.
How technical? The placement of commas technical.
There are essentially two parts to the decision. The first relates to § 6a(a)(1) of Frankendodd. This part is straightforward. Judge Wilkins ruled that it was unambiguous that the CFTC had to make a finding of the necessity of position limits. It didn’t. Back to the drawing board, GiGi.
The second part relates to sections 6a(a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(5). Here you have to get into the weeds. These Judge Wilkins found to be ambiguous. The ambiguity relates to the words “as appropriate,” as in:
Section 6a(a)(2)(A):
In accordance with the standards set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection . . . the Commission shall by rule, regulation, or order establish limits on the amount of positions, as appropriate, other than bona fide hedge positions, that may be held by any person . . .
Section 6a(a)(3):
In establishing the limits required in paragraph (2), the Commission, as appropriate, shall set limits –
(A)on the number of positions that may be held by any person for the spot month, each other month, and the aggregate number of positions that may be held by any person for all months; and . . . [Emphasis added.]
What Judge Wilkins could not determine unambiguously was whether “as appropriate” referred to the setting of limits at all, or the specific quantity of the limits. The plaintiffs (ISDA and SIFMA) argued that the CFTC had to determine whether it was appropriate to set limits at all. The CFTC argued that it had to set some limits, and Congress directed it to set the specific quantities appropriately.
This is where the commas come in. I won’t bore you with the details, but if you are planning any intercontinental travel, I direct your attention to pp. 29-30 of the ruling. You don’t have to thank me for easing your jet lag.
This matter of ambiguity turns out to be mightily important under the Chevron doctrine which determines whether a court need show deference to an agency’s decision. And here the CFTC (and yes, I’m looking at you, Gary) is hoist on its own petard.
For the CFTC claimed that the language in the statute is NOT ambiguous. Citing the Peter Pan (!) case, the Judge ruled that by claiming that the ambiguous wasn’t, the CFTC wasn’t owed any deference, and that there is precedent in his Circuit to vacate and remand the rule:
It is well-settled in this Circuit that “deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not appropriate when the agency wrongly believes that interpretation is compelled by Congress.” Peter Pan, 471 F.3d at 1352, 1354 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (vacating and remanding agency decision because agency “premised its construction on the plain language of the statute, which it treated as unambiguous, and because we find that the statutory language is in fact ambiguous . . . .”).
Whoops. By adamantly asserting that there was no ambiguity in the relevant sections of Frankendodd that the judge did find ambiguous, the CFTC lost any claim to deference.
Where do things go from here? Probably a ping pong game, with the rule bouncing back between the agency and the courts.
Presumably the CFTC will stitch up some justification for a necessity finding, and go into a long disquisition to meet step two of the Chevron test:
“[I]t is incumbent upon the agency not to rest simply on its parsing of the statutory language. It must bring its experience and expertise to bear in light of competing interests at stake” to resolve the ambiguities in the statute.
I don’t know whether a justification of a necessity finding that is based on bad economics or bad (or no) empirical evidence is vulnerable to legal challenge. I suspect it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to get the rule overturned because of a weak justification for the necessity finding. I also suspect that CFTC will be able to pass the Chevron tests if it does recognize the ambiguity-which makes me wonder why they didn’t so recognize it at the outset.
My guess, therefore, is that the CFTC can, after yet more hearings, and comments, and time, correct what Judge Wilkins found wanting. But that doesn’t mean that it’s out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot. For the plaintiffs made four additional challenges of the rule. The judge did not feel it necessary to rule on these additional charges because he found sufficient grounds in the first to remand the rule back to the agency.
Notable among the additional grounds for challenging the rule is “Insufficient Evaluation of Costs and Benefits under 7 U.S.C. § 19(a).” Will the CFTC stand pat on its existing cost-benefit analysis, which gives the word “perfunctory” new meaning? Or will it feel obliged to gin up something better, given that the court was obviously not impressed with some of its other legal reasoning, and given that the SEC has lost a major case due to its failure to do a proper cost-benefit analysis?
The other challenges relate more to the specifics of the rules.
In brief, they have not yet begun to litigate (apologies to John Paul Jones). The position limit rule has a long, long way to go before it becomes a reality.
This also raises the question of whether other Frankendodd-spawned rules will be challenged. I’m guessing yes. And there will be much rejoicing-among lawyers, anyways.
It is a good thing when bad rules are stopped. The ongoing uncertainty pending definitive legal resolution is more problematic, however. But that’s our reality, and will be for some time, on position limits, and other aspects of Frankendodd.
The title is a classic!
Comment by Scott Irwin — October 1, 2012 @ 2:25 pm