On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Swaps & Other Derivatives 2018

Released on: Oct. 31, 2018
Running Time: 12:11:49
The Dodd-Frank Act established a novel, comprehensive framework for the regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives and the market participants who transact in these products. That regulatory framework, split primarily between the SEC and CFTC, has been substantially implemented by the CFTC. For their part, the SEC has made substantial progress and has most recently focused on finalizing the rules applicable to security-based swap dealers and major participants.

The regulatory regime touches the activities of all participants in the swaps markets, from end-users to major swap participants to swap dealers. The regulations also affect a broad range of market facilities from clearinghouses to exchanges, to newly conceived swap execution facilities and swap data repositories, and other regulatory initiatives are also replacing the market.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposes registration requirements, mandatory clearing and trading requirements, margin requirements, capital and business conduct standards, and transaction and position reporting, as well as limitations on swap positions.

The legislation also established limitations on the scope of derivatives and proprietary trading activities that may be conducted by certain financial institutions.

At this program, our distinguished faculty will provide a comprehensive overview of the evolving regulatory framework for OTC derivatives and derivatives market participants, and explain how the regulatory framework affects these products, the structure of the market for these products and market participants. The program will also cover documentation issues, and recent developments in tax, accounting and litigation related to OTC derivatives, as well as professional responsibility issues associated with derivatives.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:11:49]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:03:26]
    Gary Barnett, Joshua D. Cohn
  • Swaps & Derivatives: Where We Have Been, Where We Are, Where We (May) Be Going [01:01:29]
    Gary Barnett, Joshua D. Cohn, W. Graham Harper, Kenneth M. Raisler, Barry Taylor-Brill, Don Thompson
  • Clearing; Margin for Cleared Transactions; Client Money Segregation; Default Management; End-User Perspectives [01:00:25]
    Gary Barnett, Geoffrey B. Goldman, Wenchi Hu, Peter A. Kals, William Thum, Joshua Beale
  • Swap Execution Methods, SEFs, Give-up and Reporting [01:02:37]
    Joshua D. Cohn, Debra W. Cook, Kathryn M. Trkla, Peter Y. Malyshev
  • Fintech in the Swaps Markets [00:59:09]
    Gary Barnett, Clive Ansell, Wenchi Hu, Laura Astrada
  • Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants: Who Are They and How Are They Regulated? Reporting, Business Conduct Rules, Capital [01:29:38]
    Gary Barnett, Carol McGee, Joshua Beale, Frank N. Fisanich
  • Regulation of Other Swap Market Participants: Funds, CPOs/CTAs* [00:29:18]
    Amanda Olear, Rita M. Molesworth
  • Recap and Introduction to Day Two* [00:05:31]
    Gary Barnett, Joshua D. Cohn
  • Principal Issues for Consideration and Negotiation in Derivatives Documentation-Cleared and Uncleared [01:30:19]
    Gary Barnett, Matthew K. Kerfoot, Don J. Macbean, John S. Servidio
  • Regulation of Other Swap Market Participants: The Swap Activities of Banks (continued) [01:01:37]
    Gary Barnett, Douglas E. Harris, Jamila A. Piracci, Gabriel D. Rosenberg, Joseph D. Sanguedolce
  • New Withholding Regulations on Cross-Border Equity Derivatives and Related Developments [00:59:25]
    Mark H. Leeds
  • Derivatives and Professional Responsibility [01:00:08]
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • Innovative Market Trends, Enforcement Trends, Litigation, Insolvency and Resolution Authority: Safe Harbors; Orderly Liquidation [01:28:47]
    Joshua D. Cohn, Dan M. Berkovitz, Knox McIlwain, Locke R. McMurray

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Cracking the Preemption Code: The New Model for OTC Derivatives (October 23, 2018)
    Barry Taylor-Brill
  • Security-Based Swap Clearing Agency Regulatory and Supervisory Framework (August 13, 2018)
    Wenchi Hu
  • The SEF Landscape Five Years In (August 24, 2018)
    Kathryn M. Trkla
  • The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation Whitepaper: A Progress Report on OTC Derivatives Trade Repositories—Many Miles Travelled, More Yet to Go (April 2018)
    Debra W. Cook
  • International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Linklaters Whitepaper: Smart Contracts and Distributed Ledger—A Legal Perspective (August 2017)
    Clive Ansell
  • International Swaps and Derivatives Association Common Domain Model Version 1.0 Design Definition Document (October 2017)
    Clive Ansell
  • IQ ISDA Quarterly, Vol. 4, Issue 2; pp. 8, 33-35, ISDA Launches Digital CDM (August 2018)
    Clive Ansell
  • Scott O’Malia, International Swaps and Derivatives Association, ISDA Newsletter: A Big Step Towards Efficiency (June 8, 2018)
    Clive Ansell
  • International Swaps and Derivatives Association Webinar Resources
    Clive Ansell
  • U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Press Release No. 7771-18, CFTC Unanimously Adopts Rule Amendments Simplifying Chief Compliance Officer Duties and Annual Report Rules for FCMs, Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (August 21, 2018)
    Gary Barnett
  • Charitable Organizations as Commodity Pools (August 15, 2018)
    Rita M. Molesworth
  • Total Return Swaps
    Matthew K. Kerfoot
  • Currency, Commodity and Equity Derivatives: Principal Issues for Consideration and Negotiation in Documentation (October 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    John S. Servidio
  • Documentation for Loan-Linked Swaps (October 24, 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Don J. Macbean
  • Davis Polk Client Memorandum: Proposed Amendments to the Volcker Rule Regulations (June 18, 2018)
    Gabriel D. Rosenberg
  • Proposed Amendments to the Volcker Rule Regulations (June 18, 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Gabriel D. Rosenberg
  • National Futures Association Reference Materials (PowerPoint slides)
    Jamila A. Piracci
  • Mark H. Leeds and Brennan Young, Mayer Brown Article: IRS Confirms Loan Commitment Fees Are Deductible Business Expenses
    Mark H. Leeds
  • Key Professional Responsibility Issues for Derivatives Lawyers (October 24, 2018)
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • Bloomberg BNA Securities Regulation & Law Report, 47 SRLR 2182: Derivatives Lawyers: Red Flags—See Something, Do Something (November 16, 2015)
    Michael S. Sackheim
  • Outline of the Stay Provisions under OLA and the BRRD and the ISDA Resolution Stay Jurisdictional Modular Protocol (August 7, 2017)
    Knox McIlwain

Presentation Material

  • Evolution of the OTC Derivatives Markets
    Barry Taylor-Brill
  • Derivatives Clearing: Cross-Border Issues and Recovery and Resolution
    Geoffrey B. Goldman
  • The CFTC pushed forward with Enforcement and Dodd Frank 2.0 regulatory reform
    Peter Y. Malyshev
  • Regulation of Swap Dealers & Major Swap Participants
    Frank N. Fisanich
  • Currency, Commodity and Equity Derivatives
    John S. Servidio
  • Documentation for Loan-linked Swaps
    Don J. Macbean
  • Principal Issues for Consideration and Negotiation in Derivatives Documentation-Cleared and Uncleared
    Matthew K. Kerfoot
  • NFA Reference Materials
    Jamila A. Piracci
  • Swap Dealer Counterparty Onboarding
    Douglas E. Harris
  • Federal Income Tax Update on Derivative Issues for Dealers & Banks
    Mark H. Leeds
  • Derivatives Litigation Update
    Locke R. McMurray
  • Innovative Market Trends, Enforcement Trends, Litigation, Insolvency and Resolution Authority; Safe Harbors; Orderly Liquidation
    Knox McIlwain
Co-Chair(s)
Gary Barnett ~ Former Deputy Director, Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Joshua D. Cohn ~ Managing Principal, JBHS LLC
Speaker(s)
Clive Ansell ~ Head of Market Infrastructure and Technology, International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA)
Laura Astrada ~ Executive Director, Global Public Policy, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
Joshua Beale ~ Associate Director, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Dan M. Berkovitz ~ Commissioner, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Debra W. Cook ~ Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
Frank N. Fisanich ~ Chief Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Geoffrey B. Goldman ~ Shearman & Sterling LLP
W. Graham Harper ~ Delta Strategy Group
Douglas E. Harris ~ Managing Director, Promontory Financial Group, LLC. an IBM company
Wenchi Hu ~ Consultant, Wenchi Consulting
Peter A. Kals ~ Special Counsel, Office of Commissioner Brian Quintenz, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Matthew K. Kerfoot ~ Dechert LLP
Mark H. Leeds ~ Mayer Brown LLP
Don J. Macbean ~ Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Peter Y. Malyshev ~ Reed Smith LLP
Carol M. McGee ~ Assistant Director, Division of Trading and Markets, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Knox McIlwain ~ Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Locke R. McMurray ~ Jones Day
Rita M. Molesworth ~ Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Amanda Olear ~ Associate Director, Managed Funds and Financial Requirements, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Jamila A. Piracci ~ Vice President, OTC Derivatives, National Futures Association
Kenneth M. Raisler ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Gabriel D. Rosenberg ~ Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Michael S. Sackheim ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Joseph D. Sanguedolce ~ Deputy Director - Examinations, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight
John S. Servidio ~ Winston & Strawn LLP
Barry Taylor-Brill ~ Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, Wells Fargo & Company
Don Thompson ~ Former Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, JP Morgan Chase & Co. (retired),
William Thum ~ Principal, Legal Department, Vanguard
Kathryn M. Trkla ~ Foley & Lardner LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Advanced Swaps & Other Derivatives 2019 (New York, NY) Oct. 22 - 23, 2019

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Advanced Swaps & Other Derivatives 2019  
Advanced Swaps & Other Derivatives 2018 Gary Barnett, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Joshua D. Cohn, JBHS LLC
 
Share
Email
Another great CLE.”
-Christopher Lane, Cargill, Incorporated

The program was excellent.”
-Stephen Johnson, Troutman Sanders LLP


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.