CFTC Issues Final Rules Regarding the Cross-Border Application of its Uncleared Swaps Margin Requirements – June 2016

On May 24, 2016, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) in a much anticipated action approved the issuance of final rules (“Final Rules”) regarding the cross-border application of its uncleared swaps margin requirements that it adopted on December 16, 2015. The Final Rules are closely aligned with the cross-border rules for uncleared swaps margin that the Prudential Regulators1 adopted in October of 2015 for swap dealers and major swap participants subject to their supervision. The CFTC’s Final Rules, which were published in the Federal Register on May 31, 2016, are scheduled to become effective on August 1, 2016.

I. BACKGROUND –

In December of 2015, the CFTC adopted final rules (“December 2015 Final Margin Rules”) regarding margin requirements for uncleared swaps for swap dealers and major swap participants that do not have a Prudential Regulator (“Covered Swap Entities” or “CSEs”). The rules that became the December 2015 Final Margin Rules had been re-proposed in October of 2014 (along with those of the Prudential Regulators) to take into account recommendations of the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision (“BCBS”) and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) (referred to herein as the “BCBS/IOSCO Standards”). The CFTC’s October 2014 re-proposal did not include proposed rules regarding the cross-border application of these rules; instead, the October 2014 re-proposal included an advance notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comment on three alternative approaches.

Please see full Alert below for more information.

 Download PDF

1 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
June 7, 2016
CFTC Issues Final Rules Regarding the Cross-Border
Application of its Uncleared Swaps Margin Requirements
By Julian Hammar
On May 24, 2016, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) in a much anticipated action approved
the issuance of final rules (“Final Rules”) regarding the cross-border application of its uncleared swaps margin
requirements that it adopted on December 16, 2015. The Final Rules are closely aligned with the cross-border
rules for uncleared swaps margin that the Prudential Regulators
1
adopted in October of 2015 for swap dealers
and major swap participants subject to their supervision.
2
The CFTC’s Final Rules, which were published in the
Federal Register on May 31, 2016, are scheduled to become effective on August 1, 2016.
3

I. BACKGROUND
In December of 2015, the CFTC adopted final rules (“December 2015 Final Margin Rules”) regarding margin
requirements for uncleared swaps for swap dealers and major swap participants that do not have a Prudential
Regulator (“Covered Swap Entities” or “CSEs”). The rules that became the December 2015 Final Margin Rules
had been re-proposed in October of 2014 (along with those of the Prudential Regulators) to take into account
recommendations of the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision (“BCBS”) and the Board of the International
Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) (referred to herein as the “BCBS/IOSCO Standards”).
4
The
CFTC’s October 2014 re-proposal did not include proposed rules regarding the cross-border application of these
rules; instead, the October 2014 re-proposal included an advance notice of proposed rulemaking requesting
comment on three alternative approaches.
Subsequently, in June of 2015, the CFTC separately proposed rules regarding the cross-border application of its
uncleared swaps margin rules (“Proposed Rules”). The Proposed Rules by their terms would apply the uncleared
swap margin rules at the entity level, meaning that they would apply to CFTC-registered swap dealers or major
swap participants—as entities—that do not have a Prudential Regulator. However, certain uncleared swaps
would be eligible for substituted compliance or excluded from the CFTC’s margin rules entirely under the
Proposed Rules based on the counterparties’ relationship to the United States relative to other jurisdictions.
5

1 The Prudential Regulators are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
2 See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities; Final Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 74,839 (Nov. 30, 2015).
3 See Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin
Requirements, 81 Fed. Reg. 34,817 (May 31, 2016), available here.
4 See Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants; Final Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 635 (Jan. 6. 2016).
For more information regarding the CFTC’s December 2015 Final Margin Rules, please see our client alert here.
5 For more information regarding the Proposed Rules, please see our client alert here.

2 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
II. FINAL RULES
The Final Rules generally are the same as the Proposed Rules with a few modifications that are described in this
client alert. In general, as under the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules provide for the applicability of the CFTC
Margin Rules depending upon the location of the counterparties to an uncleared swap and the nexus of the
counterparties to the United States. As discussed in greater detail below, where the covered swap entity is a U.S.
CSE or a CSE guaranteed by a U.S. person, the uncleared swaps margin rules apply to a greater extent than to a
non-U.S. CSE that is not guaranteed by a U.S. person, whose swaps may in certain circumstances be excluded
from the rules.
A. Application of the Margin Rules to U.S. CSEs and U.S.-Guaranteed CSEs
Under the Final Rules, the uncleared swaps margin requirements will generally apply to all uncleared swaps of a
U.S. CSE and a non-U.S. CSE that is guaranteed by a U.S. person (“U.S. Guaranteed CSE”), without exclusion.
Substituted compliance (i.e., compliance with a non-U.S. regulator’s rules that the CFTC has determined to be
sufficiently comparable to meet the CFTC’s uncleared swaps margin requirements, discussed in section C. below)
would be available in one circumstance only: with respect to initial margin posted to (but not collected from) any
non-U.S. person counterparty (including any non-U.S. CSE) whose obligations are not guaranteed by a U.S.
person. The CFTC believes that, with regard to a non-U.S. counterparty whose swap obligations are not
guaranteed by a U.S. person, in the interest of comity substituted compliance in these circumstances would be
reasonable. The CFTC’s rules afford U.S. CSEs and U.S. Guaranteed CSEs the same treatment as under the
Prudential Regulators’ final uncleared swaps margin rules, which provide for the possibility of substituted
compliance for U.S. CSEs and U.S. Guaranteed CSEs with regard to the posting of initial margin to
non-U.S. counterparties.
6

B. Application of Margin Rules to Non-U.S. CSEs that are Not Guaranteed by a U.S. Person
1. Availability of Substituted Compliance
The Final Rules would allow non-U.S. CSEs that are not guaranteed by a U.S. person to avail themselves of
substituted compliance with non-U.S. uncleared swaps margin rules for swaps with any counterparty, except for a
U.S. CSE or U.S. Guaranteed CSE. Notably, the availability of substituted compliance under the Final Rules is
broader than under the CFTC’s Cross-Border Guidance issued by the agency in 2013,
7
which would have applied
the CFTC’s margin requirements to swaps between non-U.S. swap dealers and all U.S. persons, with substituted
compliance available only for swaps between a non-U.S. swap dealer and a foreign branch of a U.S. swap dealer.
The availability of substituted compliance under the Final Rules also applies to a non-U.S. CSE not guaranteed by
a U.S. person that is consolidated for accounting purposes with an ultimate parent entity that is a U.S. person,
described in the rules as a “Foreign Consolidated Subsidiary” (“FCS”). For this purpose, the term “ultimate parent
entity” means an entity in a consolidated group in which none of the other entities in the group has a controlling

6 See 80 Fed. Reg. at 74,885.
7 See Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance With Certain Swap Regulations, 78 Fed. Reg. 45,291 (July 26,
2013) (“Cross Border Guidance”).

3 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
interest in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. While eligible for substituted
compliance, FCSs, as well as U.S. branches of non-U.S. CSEs, are not eligible for the exclusion from the
uncleared swaps margin rules for non-U.S. CSEs described in section B.2. below.
If the swap obligations of a non-U.S. CSE (including an FCS or U.S. branch of a non-U.S. CSE) are not
guaranteed by a U.S. person, and its counterparty is a U.S. CSE or a U.S. Guaranteed CSE (including an FCS or
U.S. branch of a non-U.S. CSE the swap obligations of which are guaranteed by a U.S. person), substituted
compliance would be available only with respect to initial margin collected from the U.S. CSE or U.S. Guaranteed
CSE, and in no other circumstances.
2. Exclusion from Margin Rules
The Final Rules provide for an exclusion from the CFTC’s uncleared swaps margin rules with respect to swaps
entered into by a non-U.S. CSE with a non-U.S. person, provided that neither the non-U.S. CSE’s nor the non-
U.S. person’s swap obligations are guaranteed by a U.S. person, and neither counterparty is an FCS or a U.S.
branch of a non-U.S. CSE.
8
In a new provision not contained in the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules provide, in
connection with inter-affiliate swaps that under the December 2015 Final Margin Rules are exempt from the
uncleared swaps margin requirements under certain conditions, that this exclusion is not available if (i) the
market-facing transaction of the non-U.S. CSE (that is otherwise eligible for the exclusion) is not subject to
comparable initial margin collection requirements in the home jurisdiction and (ii) any of the risk associated with
the uncleared swap is transferred, directly or indirectly, through inter-affiliate transactions, to a U.S. CSE.
9

C. Procedures for Substituted Compliance Determinations
The Final Rules will permit a U.S. CSE or a non-U.S. CSE in the circumstances described above that is eligible
for substituted compliance to comply with the margin requirements of the relevant foreign jurisdiction in lieu of
compliance with the CFTC’s margin requirements, only if the CFTC makes a comparability determination to the
effect that such jurisdiction’s margin requirements are comparable to the CFTC’s margin requirements. Persons
eligible to request a comparability determination include any CSE that is eligible for substituted compliance and
any foreign regulatory authority that has direct supervisory authority over one or more CSEs and that is
responsible for administering the relevant foreign jurisdiction’s margin requirements. Such persons may request a
comparability determination individually or collectively and with respect to some or all of the CFTC’s margin
requirements; the CFTC advises that eligible CSEs may wish to coordinate with their home regulators and other
CSEs to streamline the process.
A comparability determination applicant must submit (i) copies of the relevant foreign jurisdiction’s margin
requirements, (ii) a description of their objectives, (iii) a description of how they differ from the BCBS/IOSCO
standards, and (iv) a description of how they address the elements of the CFTC’s margin requirements, as well as
any other documentation the CFTC deems relevant.
10
The CFTC will issue a comparability determination to the

8 See 17 CFR 23.160(b)(2)(ii).
9 See 17 CFR 23.160(b)(2)(ii)(B).
10 See 17 CFR 23.160(c)(2).

4 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
extent that it determines that some or all of the relevant foreign jurisdiction’s margin requirements are comparable
to the CFTC’s corresponding margin requirements. In making a comparability determination, the Final Rules
provide that the CFTC will consider all relevant factors, including: (i) the scope and objectives of the relevant
foreign jurisdiction’s margin requirements, (ii) whether the relevant foreign jurisdiction’s margin requirements
achieve comparable outcomes to the Commission’s corresponding margin requirements, (iii) the ability of the
relevant regulatory authority or authorities to supervise and enforce compliance with the relevant foreign
jurisdiction’s margin requirements, and (iv) any other facts and circumstances the CFTC deems relevant.
11
The
CFTC will also consider the consistency of the margin requirements of the foreign jurisdiction with the
BCBS/IOSCO Standards, although the CFTC states that, while a finding of consistency with the BCBS/IOSCO
Standards is necessary, it may not be sufficient for a finding of comparability.
12

The CFTC describes its comparability standard as “outcome-based” with a focus on whether margin requirements
in the foreign jurisdiction achieve the same regulatory objectives as margin requirements under the Commodity
Exchange Act without regard to whether the foreign jurisdiction has implemented specific rules that are identical
to the CFTC’s rules. The standard takes the form of an “element-by-element” determination involving 12
elements, where the CFTC may find some elements comparable with its rules, but not others.
13
In a dissenting
statement to the Final Rules, CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo expressed the view that this
approach is impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the spirit of the 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh Accords and the
BCBS/IOSCO standards, and that a better approach would be to determine whether, in the aggregate, a foreign
regulator has adopted the BCBS-IOSCO standards.
14
It remains to be seen how the CFTC will apply its standard
in an actual comparability determination.
D. Definition of U.S. Person
As under the Proposed Rules, the Final Rules’ definition of U.S. person differs from the U.S. person definition in
the CFTC’s 2013 Cross-Border Guidance, which is generally applicable to Dodd-Frank Title VII CFTC
requirements. While broadly similar in most respects, key differences adopted by the Final Rules include:
 Elimination of the “including, but not limited” language contained in the U.S. person definition in the
Cross-Border Guidance. This change provides greater legal certainty for market participants as to who is
(and who is not) a U.S. person.

11 See 17 CFR 23.160(c)(3).
12 81 Fed. Reg. at 34,837.
13 The twelve elements generally are similar to the elements as proposed, except one element, the treatment of inter-affiliate derivative
transactions, has been added. The twelve elements are as follows: (A) The products subject to the foreign jurisdiction’s margin
requirements; (B) The entities subject to the foreign jurisdiction’s margin requirements; (C) The treatment of inter-affiliate derivative
transactions; (D) The methodologies for calculating the amounts of initial and variation margin; (E) The process and standards for approving
models for calculating initial and variation margin models; (F) The timing and manner in which initial and variation margin must be collected
and/or paid; (G) Any threshold levels or amounts; (H) Risk management controls for the calculation of initial and variation margin; (I) Eligible
collateral for initial and variation margin; (J) The requirements of custodial arrangements, including segregation of margin and
rehypothecation; (K) Margin documentation requirements; and (L) The cross-border application of the foreign jurisdiction’s margin regime.
See 17 CFR 23.160(c)(2)(ii).
14 See generally 81 Fed. Reg. at 34,853-54.

5 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
 Elimination of the U.S. majority ownership prong that was included in the Cross-Border Guidance
definition for funds or other collective investment vehicles. Market participants commented that this
requirement is burdensome and difficult to comply with.
 Elimination of the requirement that a legal entity owned by one or more U.S. person(s), for which such
person(s) bear unlimited responsibility for its obligations and liabilities, be majority owned by one or more
U.S. persons.
15

It is likely that the final definition of U.S. person will be welcomed by market participants, as it eliminates aspects
of the Cross-Border Guidance definition that created legal uncertainty and were burdensome to implement.
However, it should be noted that, while similar to the Prudential Regulators’ rules, the CFTC’s definition of U.S.
person includes two types of entities that are not mentioned in the Prudential Regulators’ rules: (i) an entity with
its principal place of business in the United States and (ii) an entity for which a U.S. person bears unlimited
responsibility for the entity. This may mean, in practice, that the CFTC’s uncleared swaps margin rules will apply
in more situations than the Prudential Regulators’ rules.
E. Definition of Guarantee
For purposes of the Final Rules, a guarantee is not as broadly defined as it is in the CFTC’s Cross-Border
Guidance. The Final Rules would define the term “guarantee” as an arrangement, pursuant to which one party to
an uncleared swap transaction with a non-U.S. counterparty has rights of recourse against a U.S. person
guarantor (whether such guarantor is affiliated with the non-U.S. counterparty or is an unaffiliated third party) with
respect to the non-U.S. counterparty’s obligations under the swap. A party has rights of recourse against a U.S.
guarantor if the party has a conditional or unconditional legally enforceable right, in whole or in part, to receive
payments from, or otherwise collect from, the U.S. person in connection with the non-U.S. person’s obligations
under the swap. The terms of the guarantee need not be included with the swap documentation or reduced to
writing so long as legally enforceable rights are created under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
16

15
The final definition of the term U.S. person in the Final Rules is as follows:
(i) A natural person who is a resident of the United States;
(ii) An estate of a decedent who was a resident of the United States at the time of death;
(iii) A corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business or other trust, association, joint-stock company, fund or any form of
entity similar to any of the foregoing (other than an entity described in paragraph (a)(10)(iv) or (v) of this section) (a ‘‘legal entity’’), in each
case that is organized or incorporated under the laws of the United States or having its principal place of business in the United States,
including any branch of such legal entity;
(iv) A pension plan for the employees, officers or principals of a legal entity described in paragraph (a)(10)(iii) of this section, unless the
pension plan is primarily for foreign employees of such entity;
(v) A trust governed by the laws of a state or other jurisdiction in the United States, if a court within the United States is able to exercise
primary supervision over the administration of the trust;
(vi) A legal entity (other than a limited liability company, limited liability partnership or similar entity where all of the owners of the entity
have limited liability) that is owned by one or more persons described in paragraphs (a)(10)(i) through (v) of this section and for which
such person(s) bears unlimited responsibility for the obligations and liabilities of the legal entity, including any branch of the legal entity;
or
(vii) An individual account or joint account (discretionary or not) where the beneficial owner (or one of the beneficial owners in the case of
a joint account) is a person described in paragraphs (a)(10)(i) through (vi) of this section.

17 CFR 23.610(a)(10).
16 See 17 CFR 23.160(a)(2).

6 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
The Final Rules add a provision to the definition of the term guarantee not contained in the Proposed Rules,
which provides that, in the case of any arrangement pursuant to which the guarantor has a conditional or
unconditional legally enforceable right to receive or otherwise collect, in whole or in part, payments from any other
guarantor with respect to the counterparty’s obligations under the uncleared swap, such arrangement will be
deemed a guarantee of the counterparty’s obligations under the uncleared swap by the other guarantor. This
provision conforms the CFTC’s definition of the term guarantee to that of the Prudential Regulators in their final
margin rules. Notwithstanding this modification, the Final Rules’ definition of the term guarantee is generally
narrower than that in the Cross-Border Guidance because it does not include other types of financial
arrangements, such as keepwells and liquidity puts, certain types of indemnity agreements, master trust
agreements, liability, or loss transfer or sharing agreements.
F. Reliance on Counterparty Representations
The Final Rules expands the circumstances under which market participants may reasonably rely on written
representations with respect to the status of their counterparties compared with the Proposed Rules. Under the
Final Rules, a market participant may reasonably rely on a counterparty’s written representation of its status as a
U.S. person, FCS, or a non-U.S. person whose obligations are guaranteed by a U.S. person, unless the market
participant has information that would cause a reasonable person to question the accuracy of the
representation.
17
By contrast, the Proposed Rules would have permitted reliance on a counterparty’s
representation only in the case of representing its status as a U.S. person (and not as an FCS or whether the
obligations of the counterparty are guaranteed by a U.S. person).
G. Special Provisions for Non-Segregation and Non-Netting Jurisdictions
In order to conform the CFTC’s uncleared swaps margin rules to those of the Prudential Regulators, the Final
Rules add two provisions similar to the Prudential Regulators’ Rules to address non-segregation and non-netting
foreign jurisdictions. Specifically, the first provision addresses swaps with counterparties in foreign jurisdictions
where limitations in the legal or operational infrastructure of the jurisdiction make it impracticable to comply with
the custodial arrangement requirements contained in the December 2015 Final Margin Rules. Subject to
conditions, an FCS or a foreign branch of a U.S. CSE transacting with counterparties in such jurisdictions need
not comply with either the requirement to post initial margin or the custodial arrangement requirements that
pertain to initial margin collected by a CSE under the December 2015 Final Margin Rules.
18
The second provision
addresses the situation where a CSE cannot conclude, with a well-founded basis, that a netting agreement with a
counterparty in a foreign jurisdiction meets the definition of an “eligible master netting agreement” set forth in the
December 2015 Final Margin Rules. The provision provides that a CSE may net uncleared swaps in such

17 See 81 Fed. Reg. at 34,827.
18 See 17 CFR 23.160(e). The conditions include that (i) the CSE’s counterparty must be a non-U.S. person that is not a CSE, and the
counterparty’s obligations must not be guaranteed by a U.S. person; (ii) the CSE must collect initial margin in cash on a gross basis and post
and collect variation margin in cash in accordance with the December 2015 Final Margin Rules; and (iii) for each broad risk category set out
in the December 2015 Final Margin Rules (credit, equity, foreign exchange and interest rates, and commodities), the total outstanding
notional value of all uncleared swaps in the broad risk category as to which the CSE is relying upon this relief may not exceed 5% of the
CSE’s total outstanding notional value for all uncleared swaps in that same broad risk category. In addition, the CSE must have policies and
procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of the exception and maintain books and records documenting that the requirements
are satisfied. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 34,833.

7 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Client Alert
circumstances in determining the amount of initial and variation margin that it posts, provided that certain
conditions are met.
19

III. CONCLUSION
Certain aspects of the CFTC’s Final Rules may be viewed favorably by market participants, including the greater
legal certainty provided for in the U.S. person definition, the expansion (as compared with the CFTC’s Cross-
Border Guidance) of the scope for potential substituted compliance determinations and the broadened number of
situations where counterparty representations may be relied upon. However, much of the Final Rules’ impact on
market participants may depend upon how the substituted compliance determination process is implemented,
which, although labeled an “outcomes-based” approach, may not achieve that objective with its element-by-
element determinations in practice. The element-by-element determinations may also result in findings that some
foreign margin requirements are comparable, but not others, leading to the potential for a complex patchwork of
U.S. and non-U.S. requirements to apply to cross-border swap transactions, which may greatly increase the
compliance burden and cost for market participants.

Contact:
Julian Hammar
(202) 887-1679
jhammar@mofo.com
James Schwartz
(212) 336-4327
jschwartz@mofo.com
Chrys Carey
(202) 887-8770
ccarey@mofo.com
David Kaufman
(212) 468-8237
dkaufman@mofo.com

About Morrison & Foerster:
We are Morrison & Foerster—a global firm of exceptional credentials. Our clients include some of the largest
financial institutions, investment banks, Fortune 100, technology and life science companies. We’ve been
included on The American Lawyer’s A-List for 12 straight years, and Fortune named us one of the “100 Best
Companies to Work For.” Our lawyers are committed to achieving innovative and business-minded results for our
clients, while preserving the differences that make us stronger. This is MoFo. Visit us at www.mofo.com.
Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations
and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Prior results do not
guarantee a similar outcome.

19 See 17 CFR 23.160(d). These conditions are that the CSE must treat uncleared swaps covered by the agreement on a gross basis in
determining the amount of initial and variation margin that it must collect and that the CSE have policies and procedures to ensure, and
maintain books and records to document, compliance with the requirements of 17 CFR 23.160(d).

8 © 2016 Morrison & Foerster LLP | mofo.com Attorney Advertising

Cross-Border Application of Uncleared Swaps Margin Requirements under CFTC Final Rules

Covered Swap Entity (“CSE”) Counterparty
Cross-Border Application of
Margin Requirements
 U.S. CSE or
 Non-U.S. CSE (including U.S.
branch of a non- U.S. CSE or a
Foreign Consolidated Subsidiary
(‘‘FCS’’)) whose obligations under
the relevant swap are guaranteed
by a U.S. person.
Any (except for a non-U.S. person
whose swap obligations are not
guaranteed by a U.S. person as
noted immediately below).

CFTC Margin Rules apply.

 U.S. CSE or
 Non-U.S. CSE (including a U.S.
branch of a non-U.S. CSE or an
FCS) whose obligations under the
relevant swap are guaranteed by a
U.S. person.
Non-U.S. person (including a non-
U.S. CSE, FCS, or U.S. branch of a
non-U.S. CSE) whose swap
obligations are not guaranteed by a
U.S. person.

 CFTC Margin Rules generally
apply
 Substituted compliance may be
available for the posting of initial
margin by the CSE.
Non-U.S. CSE that is not:
 an FCS of a U.S. person or
 a U.S. branch of a non-U.S.
CSE, and
whose obligations under the swap
are not guaranteed by a U.S.
person.
Non-U.S. person counterparty
(including a non-U.S. CSE but not:
 an FCS or
 a U.S. branch of a non-U.S.
CSE), and
whose obligations under the swap
are not guaranteed by a U.S. person
CFTC Margin Rules do not apply
(except in connection with certain
inter-affiliate swaps).

 Non-U.S. CSE that is not an FCS
and whose swaps are not
guaranteed by a U.S. person or
 Non-U.S. CSE whose obligations
under a swap are not guaranteed
by a U.S. person, but which is an
FCS or a U.S. branch of the non-
U.S. CSE.
 U.S. CSE or
 Non-U.S. CSE (including U.S.
branch of a non-U.S CSE or an
FCS) whose swap obligations are
guaranteed by a U.S. person).

 CFTC Margin Rules apply.
 Substituted compliance may be
available for collection of initial
margin by the non-U.S. CSE.
 Non-U.S. CSE that is not an FCS
and whose swaps are not
guaranteed by a U.S. person or
 Non-U.S. CSE whose obligations
under a swap are not guaranteed
by a U.S. person, but which is an
FCS or a U.S. branch of the non-
U.S. CSE.
 U.S. person (except as noted
above for a U.S. CSE).
 Non-U.S. person whose swap
obligations are guaranteed by a
U.S. person (except a non-U.S.
CSE, U.S. branch of a non-U.S.
CSE, or FCS whose obligations
are guaranteed as noted above).
 Non-U.S. CSE, U.S. branch of a
non-U.S. CSE or foreign
consolidated subsidiary whose
obligations are not guaranteed by
a U.S. person.
Substituted compliance may be
available for all requirements.

Download PDF[277KB]
Email
Report

Note close

Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.

We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.

Please choose one of the above to proceed!

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.