Practice/Industry Group Overview
In addition to "expertise in energy and commodity enforcement defense, regulatory work and compliance issues," the "team also possesses extensive expertise in structured finance and M&A matters, and has expert knowledge of energy derivatives" - Chambers USA
Cadwalader’s leading energy and commodities team has broad and deep experience in all forms of complex regulatory, compliance, transactional, investigations, and enforcement defense matters involving energy, metals, and agricultural commodities and related listed and over-the-counter derivatives. We provide counsel to leading U.S. and international financial institutions; investment funds; oil, power and natural gas companies, producers, and developers; industrial and commercial customers; trade associations; commodity marketers; exchanges and clearing organizations.
Regulation & Compliance: We have extensive experience representing clients in all types of regulatory matters, including those before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), multiple state public utility commissions (PUCs), as well as regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs).
Investigations: We regularly represent clients before the CFTC, FERC, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), congressional committees, and in investigations performed by foreign regulators. We also advise on compliance and enforcement issues before NERC, and certain state PUCs.
Transactions: Our team has wide-ranging and extensive experience in all forms of complex transactional matters involving the energy, agriculture, metals and derivatives sectors and advises clients in mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, securities, private equity, structured transactions, all forms of debt finance, as well as restructuring should the need arise.
Renewables: We have more than a decade of experience in the renewable and alternative power project development and finance, emissions control and trading, energy efficiency and demand response, and the energy trading industries, giving our team an unparalleled understanding of the transformative impact of energy and climate change on international business.
With attorneys located in New York, Washington, DC, London and Houston, we offer clients practical insights into the evolving regulatory, business, and legal issues affecting the global energy and commodities markets. Many of the leading lawyers who comprise the team were previously affiliated with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), state public utility commissions, and commodity trading businesses. They are also long-time members of leading industry organizations, such as the American Bar Association’s Derivatives and Futures Law Committee, the Energy Bar Association, the Futures Industry Association Law and Compliance Division, SIFMA, and ISDA, giving them unique insight into, and knowledge of, this increasingly competitive and regulated industry.
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:
CFTC / CME Settle Misappropriation Case
Scott A. Cammarn,Douglas J. Donahue,Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Doron F. Ezickson,Steven Lofchie, December 28, 2015
On December 2, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) simultaneously announced settlements with Arya Motazedi, a gasoline trader, including for claims of insider trading under...
CFTC Extends No-Action Relief for Swaps Executed as Part of Certain Package Transactions
Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Andrew M. Greenberg,Neal E. Kumar,Michael Selig, December 07, 2015
On October 14, 2015, the Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”) for the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued an additional extension of no-action relief for swaps executed as part of “package” transactions.1 This relief provides additional time...
CFTC Unanimously Approves Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulation of Automated Trading
Isabelle S. Corbett,Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Neal E. Kumar,Jorge Pesok,Michael Selig, November 30, 2015
On November 24, 2015, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) held an open meeting to propose the regulation of automated trading (“Regulation AT”). According to the CFTC, the purpose of Regulation AT is to minimize the potential for...
Initial Decision Finds that BP Manipulated 2008 Natural Gas Market in Texas
Sohair A. Aguirre,Doron F. Ezickson,Paul J. Pantano,Mary Treanor, August 19, 2015
On August 13, 2015, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial decision in which she found that BP America Inc. et al. (“BP”) manipulated the natural gas market in Texas for over...
Supreme Court Rejects EPA Mercury Emissions Rule
Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Douglas H. Fischer, July 23, 2015
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt upon the future of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) failed to adequately consider the costs of the rule as part of its initial decision to issue...
Remit: The Road to Enforcement
Doron F. Ezickson,Adam Topping, July 14, 2015
Following a number of recent developments, described below, the rules and regulations enacted under the European Union (EU) Regulation on Wholesale Energy Markets Integrity and Transparency (REMIT) are now close to being fully-implemented. Market participants must ensure they are now prepared for...
Such A Fact Pattern Does Not A $5 Million Penalty Make.
Doron F. Ezickson,Thomas Reid Millar,Katherine Vorhis, June 18, 2015
Or so says one dissenting FERC Commissioner in the recent Maxim Power enforcement proceeding.1 On May 1, 2015, FERC issued an order assessing civil penalties (the “Order”) of $5 million against Maxim Power Corporation and its named subsidiaries (“Maxim”),2 as well as $50,000...
Tariff Compliance Is Not Enough: FERC Imposes Nearly Thirty-Five Million Dollars in Penalties and Disgorgement against Powhatan Energy Fund and Its Trading Associates
Doron F. Ezickson,Thomas Reid Millar,Mary Treanor, June 18, 2015
On May 29, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued an Order against Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC and its trading partners, Dr. Houlihan Chen, HEEP Fund, LLC and CU Fund, Inc. (together, “Powhatan”). FERC imposed civil monetary penalties of more than $29...
A Signal of Things to Come? New CME Rule 512 Reflects Modified Stance for Violations of Futures and Options Reporting Requirements
Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Jonathan H. Flynn,Neal E. Kumar,Gregory George Mocek,Mary Treanor, April 27, 2015
On March 24, 2015, the CME Group, Inc. (“CME”) announced a proposed amendment to Rule 512 indicating that it will impose a minimum fine of $1,000 for repeat violations of its exchanges’ reporting rules for futures and options. The amendment, which became effective on April 7, 2015...
The Fate of Demand Response Hangs in the Balance
Sohair A. Aguirre,Gregory K. Lawrence,Natalie Mitchell,Lamiya Rahman, March 25, 2015
The Justices of the United States Supreme Court are not strangers to the retail versus wholesale distinction that often plagues FERC’s regulations. Indeed, on January 12, 2015 they heard arguments in Oneok v. Learjet regarding this very question. Three days later, on January 15, 2015, the...
FERC Issues Order to Show Cause to Maxim Power
Terence T. Healey,Gregory K. Lawrence,Thomas Reid Millar,Natalie Mitchell,Christopher J. Polito, March 25, 2015
On February 2, 2015, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty to Maxim Power Corporation and its named subsidiaries (“Maxim”), jointly and severally, as well as executive, Kyle Mitton (the “Order”). The Commission ordered Maxim and Mitton (together,...
New Exchange Rules on Disruptive Trading Practices Summary Chart
Sohair A. Aguirre,Isabelle S. Corbett,Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Jonathan H. Flynn,Neal E. Kumar, March 25, 2015
On January 14, 2015, the Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”) rule prohibiting disruptive trading practices (ICE Rule 4.02) became effective. The ICE Rule is substantively the same as Rule 575 passed by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, the...
Unregistered CTA Summit Energy Services: Choose Your Words Wisely
Athena Yvonne Eastwood,Andrew M. Greenberg,Neal E. Kumar,Gregory K. Lawrence, March 25, 2015
A recent case highlights the importance of periodically reviewing an energy company's marketing materials and related activities (including statements made on websites) to ensure that the company is not holding itself out -- without CFTC registration -- as a CTA (commodity trading advisor). A...
Does the Natural Gas Act Preempt State-Law Antitrust Lawsuits? - Supreme Court Arguments
Terence T. Healey,Natalie Mitchell,Christopher J. Polito,Mary Treanor, March 12, 2015
On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition to hear an appeal by several companies contending that state-law antitrust claims were precluded by the federal Natural Gas Act and, therefore, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, including the Federal Energy...