The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) published a proposition to regulate speculation through futures and option contracts on the over-the-counter energy market on January 26, 2010. This proposition is being challenged by the CME Group (the principal American futures market operator), which claims that the CFTC does not have a legal mandate to regulate over-the-counter trading in energy, because such action would have to be authorised by a specific law.
The Internet has created an area of freedom, even libertarian space.
The flood of words is sometimes hateful. Never mind. This would be the price of freedom: it corresponds to the project of those who conceived the Internet, the places of expression and creation, even the worst, and the political and legal culture of the United States, a system in which the freedom of expression has constitutional value.
This in particular allows for the development of ideas spreading so-called "neo-Nazi" thinking, as the Stormfront site has been doing for years.
The host also banned the web master from rebuilding the site or transferring it in any way.
This case gives rise to a debate on the rise of extremists in the United States on the one hand and the limit of freedom of expression on the other.
What is here to be noted is the power of a web host in the matter.
___
At first glance, a private company does not have to make the police, let alone morality, and to remove the use of a domain name, that is to "kill" a site. But it must be taken into account that three years had passed and that this site, the basis of future events of KKK, prospered.
The manager who made the decision found it necessary to justify himself, as a Regulatory Authority would have done, giving grounds for a sanction decision, even though he can avail himself of the general conditions of use that are accepted by the entities that create and operate the sites.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) published a proposition to regulate speculation through futures and option contracts on the over-the-counter energy market on January 26, 2010. This proposition is being challenged by the CME Group (the principal American futures market operator), which claims that the CFTC does not have a legal mandate to regulate over-the-counter trading in energy, because such action would have to be authorised by a specific law.
FRENCH
Rapport Sectoriel (Energie / Finance) : Le "CME Group" (principal opérateur de bourse de commerce aux Etats-Unis) conteste la proposition de "Commodity Futures Trading Commission — CFTC" (autorité de tutelle américaine des bourses de commerce) qui vise à réguler la spéculation sur les options et dérivés de l'énergie
La “Commodity Futures Trading Commission — CFTC” (l’autorité de tutelle américaine des bourses de commerce) publie le 26 janvier 2010 un projet visant à réguler la spéculation sur le marché de gré-à-gré énergétique. Cette proposition est vivement contestée par le CME Group (la principale bourse de commerce américaine), qui conteste que la CFTC n’est pas fondée légalement à réguler les échanges de gré-à-gré sur le marché de l’énergie, et qu’une telle compétence ne peut être accordée que par une loi spécifique.
SPANISH
El Grupo CME (operador principal de la bolsa de comercio americano) desafía la propuesta de la “Commodity Futures Trading Commission – CTFC” (la autoridad de tutela americana de la bolsa de valores) del 26 de enero del 2010 de regular la especulación sobre energías futuras, contratos de opciones y derivados.
La “Commodity Futures Trading Commission” - CFTC (la autoridad de tutela americana de la bolsa de valores) publicó el día 26 de enero del 2010 una propuesta para regular la especulación sobre el mercado extrabursátil de energía a través de contratos a futuro y a opciones. Esta propuesta está siendo fuertemente refutada por el Grupo CME (el operador principal de la bolsa de valores americano) quien declara que la CFTC no tiene la competencia legal para regular las operaciones extrabursátiles de energía, ya que tal acción tendría que ser autorizada por una ley específica.
GERMAN
Sektorialer Bericht (Energie / Finanz): Der CME Group (die Hauptwarenbörse Amerikas) hat sich gegen den Vorschlag der Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC - die amerikanische Aufsichtsbehörde für Warenbörse) geäußert, die Spekulation auf außerbörslichen Energiemärkten zu regeln.
Die Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, die amerikanische Aufsichtsbehörde für Warenbörse) hat am 26. Januar 2010 eine Entwurfsarbeit veröffentlicht, in der sie ihre Absicht erklärt, die Spekulation auf außerbörslichen Energiemärkten zu regeln. Dieser Entwurf wurde vom CME Group stark kritisiert. Der CME Group, die Hauptwarenbörse in den VS, behauptet, dass die CFTC keinen rechtlichen Auftrag hat, solch eine Reglung einzuführen. Erst ein spezifistiches Gesetz würde es ermöglichen können, laut der CME Group.
Internet requires regulation. It does not works solely because of the moral sense of the users or through vigilance of companies that develop on it.
The regulator of the virtual space can be imagined, or a regulator of the various possible activities that develop there, regulators then deploying their powers as when the activity takes place on the Internet. Thus, it is the case of advertising.
In the UK, the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) monitors the advertising business, also on the Internet.
Its decision of 26 November 2014 is remarkable for several reasons. It punishes two non-professionals, namely two users Youtube tool. But in communication, non-market entrepreneurs sometimes have more weight than businesses. But on the Internet, users can sponsor their free activity, which is to monetize. In this case, the two had played on their Youtube channel short films that were advertisements.
The complaint made against them is that Youtube is not a support on which those who put content make it to commercial purposes. And other users could not understand they watched the advertisement and not a distraction film or information.
The Regulator imposes a sanction against Internet users not because they did a promotional contract with the company, in this case Cadbury wich wants to promote Oreo cookies. By this contract, the entreprisee via the famous Internet users can reach consumers, which is permissible. They are punished because they have deceived the confidence of the other Internet users who can't imagine being the target of an advertisement. The fact that it is people with many fans on youtube counted in the severity of the Regulator. Indeed, they have more than 2 million subscribers. More than 1.3 million have seen the offending video. Only 243 people have not loved it.
Thus, in a virtual world always close to self-regulation, the notion of trust made to the information transmitters is the central concept of the system served by the Regulator power to impose sanctions,The author of the message is a professional or not is irrelevant. What matters is the importance that others give the message he sends.
The President's rationale is this: that environmental regulation is justified because it will prevent many diseases and even death from respiratory failure. However, social programs and Obamacare are the major challenges of his presidency.
Therefore, the discussion is about the relationship between "regulation" and "sector": if the Regulation is related simply to the environment, then the argument of additional financial regulation advanced by firms is relevant.
Indeed, the principle of proportionality being key in regulatory techniques, there is disproportionality between the means and the goal.
But if the charges have to end not only the preservation of the environment but also public health and human lives then more burdens on business are justified.
Thus, depending on whether one attaches one or more goals in a constraint, it justifies more or less charge. Companies have interest in claiming that the regulation serves only one purpose. The state has an interest in claiming that the regulation uses several if it wants additional burden on businesses.
This is the speech that President Barack Obama, whose political maneuvering margins are low, is being built.
Libor is the rate set by the bank statements, anticipating purchases liquidity between them. The Libor rate is the result of self-regulation. On this rate, the financial system leans to fix rates many different financial transactions. However, now many banks are sued by authorities, for manipulation. The banks made false statement or organize a cartel, producing a rate in their favor. From the condemnation of the Barclays 26 June 2012 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the commencement of proceedings, the constitution of the Commission to think reform Libor estimated pernicious, banks choose their strategy. Most prefer to cooperate fully in themselves investigation leading home and helping the authorities. This was the case of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). Today it is the case of Société Générale (SocGen).
The U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, dismissed a class action suit brought against drug manufacturer, Schering Plough, alleging that payments it made to two generic drug manufacturers in order to delay the introduction of generic forms of one of its products, violated antitrust law.
The Regulator itself issued the amount of the award to a whistleblower for having providing it with information. Why is that? One would usually take a lower profile when awarding this much money ($17m) to an informer… Conversely, the Regulator immediately and publicly announced it in a press release, which pretty looked like a tender offer for further denunciations. It even included a link for everyone to access the whistleblower program—which is easily funded, since the awards are charged on the fines imposed on the convicted operators thanks to the information given.
The reason for this is that information from whistleblowers is not merely indicative, nor a second-best option; it is central to Regulation, since it leads the Regulator to get information people within the system (i.e., insiders) deliberately chooses to ‘blow’ (in fact, not only do informers blow the whistle—they often immediately provide the Regulator with substantial information).
The press release includes justifications for the Regulator’s behaviour, as the SEC openly considers that rewarding whistleblowers is the most efficient way for the Regulator to open or to resolve investigations. The Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement stated indeed that “company insiders are uniquely positioned to protect investors and blow the whistle on a company’s wrongdoing by providing key information to the SEC so we can investigate the full extent of the violations”.
This highlights the ambivalence of insiders. Accordingly, they need to be ‘inside’ the system to be ‘knowledgeable’ and, consequently, obtain privileged information. On the one hand, should they use this information for themselves, then they would face prosecution for market abuse; on the other hand, however, if they use it to stir up the Regulator and shift its attention towards the whistle they’re blowing, then they may earn just as much money, if not more, than if they had behaved in a way that would have led them to prison.
The stage is thus set for the "business of virtue" to thrive.
On 4 July 2012, the Conseil d’Etat (French Council of State) issued a rejection decision validating ARCEP’s dismissal to prosecute in an enforcement case initiated by an association of operators, AFORST. This case brings a broad look back on many years of ARCEP’s regulation of the electronic communications sector and more precisely on the pricing obligations imposed on the incumbent France Telecom within wholesale fixed markets. It provides interesting guidance on the enforcement procedure and on other recourses for competitors to ensure effectiveness of regulated prices.
French
Le 4Juillet2012,le Conseil d’Etata rendu un arrêt validantl'arrêt de la procédure, du fait de la renonciation par l’ARCEPd’engager des poursuitesdans une affaired’exécutionengagée par uneassociation d’opérateurs, l’AFORST.Cette affaireapporte un perspective sur de nombreuses annéesen de régulation de l’ARCEPdans lesecteur des communications électroniquesnet plus précisément surles obligationsimposées auxprix fixes de l’opérateur historique,France Télécom,dans lesmarchés de gros.Elle fournit des indicationsintéressantes surla procédure d’exécutionet surd’autres recourspour les concurrentsafin d’assurerl’effectivité de larégulation des prix.
