The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced two orders filing and simultaneously settling charges against two swap execution facilities (SEFs), BGC Derivative Markets, L.P. and GFI Swaps Exchange, LLC, for failing to properly report data related to thousands of swap transactions and violating SEF Core Principles, and against BGC SEF for also violating a prior CFTC order.     The SEFs admit the facts in the orders and are ordered to cease and desist from further violations of these swap reporting provisions and SEF Core Principles and are ordered to comply with remedial undertakings, including submitting reports to the CFTC, attested to by their respective chief compliance officer and chief executive officer, within one year. BGC SEF is also ordered to cease and desist from further violation of the prior CFTC order and to retain an independent compliance consultant to advise on implementing the ordered remediation. The orders require BGC SEF to pay a $750,000 civil monetary penalty, and GFI SEF to pay a $550,000 civil monetary penalty. “These actions continue to highlight the value of timely self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation with the Division of Enforcement, along with the importance the CFTC places on accurate and timely swaps reporting,” said Director of Enforcement Ian McGinley. “They also demonstrate the importance of SEFs’ obligations to enact appropriate controls for system design, implementation, and testing.  When SEFs fail to meet these obligations, outside assistance may be necessary, especially when the failures come on the heels of a prior enforcement action on these same provisions.” Background The BGC SEF order finds from December 2022 to April 2024, as the result of five reporting systems issues, BGC SEF failed to report, accurately report, or publish data related to thousands of transactions. Additionally, BGC SEF real-time reported erroneous execution times to a swaps data repository for thousands of voice-executed interest rate swap transactions. BGC SEF’s swap reporting failures and inaccurate reports, as well as its failure to promptly identify and correct the underlying causes, were the result of BGC SEF’s swap reporting system design and its inadequate system of internal controls and procedures. These violations occurred after the CFTC issued an order against BGC SEF on Sept. 30, 2022, for violations under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations of the same swap reporting provisions and all but one of the same SEF Core Principles. The GFI SEF order finds from July 2017 to February 2024, as the result of six reporting systems issues, GFI SEF failed to report, accurately report, or publish data related to thousands of transactions. GFI SEF’s swap reporting failures and inaccurate reports, as well as its failure to promptly identify these errors, were the result of insufficient swap reporting processes, its swap reporting system design, and an inadequate system of internal controls and procedures.  Both orders also found SEF Core Principle violations. First, the SEFs had recurrent reporting and publication failures and inadequate processes for reporting complete and accurate swap transaction information. Second, the SEFs failed to design and sufficiently test their swap transaction and reporting system to ensure compliance with their swap reporting obligations and lacked sufficient processes and procedures surrounding the design, testing, implementation, and operation of their swap transaction and reporting system. The Division of Enforcement appreciates the assistance of the Division of Market Oversight and the Division of Data. Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this case are Rebecca Jelinek, Tom Simek, Chris Reed, and Charles Marvine.  RELATED LINKS Order: BGC Derivative Markets, L.P. Order: GFI Swaps Exchange, LLC Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced an order filing and settling charges against Tradition SEF LLC (TSEF), a registered swap execution facility (SEF) based in New York. The order finds TSEF failed to establish and maintain adequate system safeguards and failed to promptly provide records to the Division of Market Oversight (DMO) during a routine systems safeguards examination. The order requires TSEF, among other things, to pay an $875,000 civil monetary penalty and remediate its system safeguards failures. “Today’s enforcement action represents two firsts for the CFTC—the first action charging a SEF with system safeguards violations and the first charging a registrant for failing to provide records promptly during a DMO examination. Ensuring that SEFs comply with their system safeguards obligations is essential to the safety and reliability of our markets. And effective oversight of those markets requires that DMO not be hindered in its system safeguards examinations by lax production of books and records,” said Ian McGinley, Director of Enforcement. Case Background The order finds during the relevant period, TSEF failed to comply with certain aspects of the SEF system safeguards requirements in the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The order finds TSEF did not adequately brief its board of directors on the results of certain business continuity-disaster recovery (BCDR), technical risk, and penetration testing and assessments. Although TSEF management provided some test and assessment results to individual directors, TSEF did not present the full board with results of all required testing and assessments. TSEF also failed to maintain an adequate BCDR program by not conducting regular, periodic testing and review of its BCDR capabilities. TSEF also failed to have an adequate enterprise risk management program consistent with generally accepted standards and practices, as it lacked finalized, written policies that adequately addressed operational and third-party risk or that defined organizational risk tolerance and appetite. The order further finds despite being granted multiple extensions, TSEF failed to produce certain documents DMO requested promptly during a routine examination. In fact, at the time DMO conducted its interviews, TSEF had still not produced all requested records. Moreover, TSEF did not fully comply with DMO’s request for records until after DMO had completed the examination. The Division of Enforcement staff responsible for this matter are Karen Kenmotsu, Jonah E. McCarthy, Timothy J. Mulreany, and Paul G. Hayeck; and DOE thanks and acknowledges the assistance of DMO staff Jacob Dull, Kyle Miller, and Rachel Berdansky. RELATED LINKS Order: Tradition SEF LLC Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham

The European Energy Exchange (EEX) will host the Europe-wide primary market emissions auctions until 31 December 2026, following the extension of the original five-year contract. The third common auction platform under this contract covers EU ETS allowances for the sectors electricity and heat generation, energy-intensive industry, aviation and maritime. An additional emission trading system (EU ETS2) for buildings, road transport and additional sectors shall start with auctions in 2027. The current contract has been extended in order to make the fourth common auction platform to coincide with the start of the auctioning of EU ETS2 allowances. Peter Reitz, CEO of EEX, said: “We believe that the EU ETS system is an important measure to facilitate the decarbonisation process in the EU. We are proud to be an enabler for these efforts, which have already achieved an approximate 47% decrease in ETS emissions, compared to 2005 levels.” The auctions continue to be held on behalf of 25 EU Member States, three EEA EFTA states as well as for the Innovation Fund, the Modernisation Fund, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and as of 2025 the Social Climate Fund. EEX has been running and European Commodity Clearing (ECC) has cleared more than 2,800 EU ETS auctions since 2010. The European Energy Exchange (EEX) is a leading energy exchange which builds secure, successful and sustainable commodity markets worldwide – together with its customers. As part of EEX Group, a group of companies serving international commodity markets, it offers contracts on power, natural gas and emission allowances as well as freight and agricultural products. EEX also provides registry services as well as auctions for Guarantees of Origin, on behalf of the French State.

Following the introduction of Intraday Auctions (IDAs) within the Single Intraday Coupling (SIDC) earlier this year, together with the latest update of the electronic formats for data reporting, ACER publishes today the updated: Transaction Reporting User Manual (TRUM) and its Annexes; and FAQs on REMIT transaction reporting. What are Intraday Auctions? Intraday Auctions (IDAs) were introduced within the SIDC framework in June 2024 to facilitate intraday electricity trading across Europe. IDAs are implicit auctions held three times a day that price and allocate intraday transmission capacity simultaneously across different bidding zones. This mechanism improves market efficiency by providing clear price signals and balancing electricity trading positions. What’s new in ACER guidance documents? TRUM and its Annexes: the amendments mainly focus on providing guidance on reporting the delivery point for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) supply contracts that specify delivery within the EU without identifying a specific LNG terminal. This update was needed to align ACER guidance documents with the List of Accepted Energy Identification Codes (EICs). FAQs on REMIT transaction reporting: the 17th edition of the FAQs was developed in consultation with the relevant Nominated Electricity Market Operators (NEMOs) to provide guidance on the reporting of transactions related to the recently introduced SIDC IDAs. What are the next steps? Reporting parties are expected to comply with the updated transaction reporting guidance on SIDC IDAs within 3 months of its publication on the ACER website (i.e., by the end of December 2024).

Monthly statistics including stock and derivative statistics; Volumes and Market cap Most traded companies Most active members Listings and member Attachments:Statistics_September_2024_summary_.pdf

I am pleased that the CFTC has provided substantial credit to Barclays Bank PLC, a non-U.S. swap dealer, for self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation efforts, including two issues previously identified in a National Futures Association (NFA) exam and self-disclosed to the CFTC pursuant to the swap dealer annual compliance report requirement.[1] This is a move in the right direction for the CFTC, and is a return to a more normal and rational approach to enforcement actions for operational or technical issues with no misconduct, harm to clients, or financial losses.[2] As reflected in recent settlement orders, the CFTC changed its approach to swap data reporting cases in 2023 to be excessively and disproportionately punitive, and more generally has shifted its enforcement program to focus on registration and compliance instead of the CFTC’s mission to prevent fraud, manipulation, and abuse in our markets. Even worse, when the CFTC is investigating fraud or manipulation and does not find evidence that substantiates the alleged charges—meaning there is no proof of fraud or manipulation—the CFTC abuses the power of the government to get firms to agree to settle for overblown charges regarding oftentimes non-material operational or technical issues. I question why the CFTC changed its approach to assessing civil monetary penalties in swap data reporting matters in 2023 without sufficient reasoning and justification or fair notice to the public. Swap data reporting did not suddenly become more important in 2023—it has been important for transparency and monitoring of systemic risk ever since the Dodd-Frank Act was implemented in 2010. I hope that the CFTC will continue to correct this misguided change in approach. I continue to believe that the CFTC must adopt a clear standard for self-reporting and cooperation credit that is applied consistently.[3] Implementing my proposals to improve the CFTC’s internal governance and procedures, particularly regarding the process for enforcement recommendations to the Commission, will promote government accountability and provide further transparency and regulatory clarity.[4] Overall, to achieve the agency’s mission, the CFTC must get its priorities straight, stop being an outlier among all U.S. and non-U.S. regulators, and finally implement an effective CFTC examination program for systemically important swap dealers that is risk-based and proportionate in accordance with international standards for regulators. Enforcement is no substitute for the examination process. The CFTC Has Failed to Implement a Supervisory Approach that Is Risk-Based and Proportionate This change in the CFTC’s enforcement approach to swap data reporting cases is concerning because it further highlights the CFTC’s lack of expertise in supervisory oversight of CFTC registrants such as swap dealers, including basic concepts like risk-based supervision and proportionality. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision Although the CFTC is not a member of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the CFTC should adhere to international standards and best practices for regulators that oversee banks, the BCBS Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision, as appropriate and adapted for the CFTC’s unique jurisdiction,[5] because the CFTC directly registers and oversees banks as swap dealers (including global systemically important banks (G-SIBs)). The BCBS Core Principles are the de facto minimum standard for sound prudential regulation and supervision of banks and banking systems.[6] While the CFTC is not per se a bank supervisor, the BCBS Core Principles can nevertheless be used as a benchmark to assess the effectiveness of the CFTC’s supervisory systems.[7] For example, under the BCBS Core Principles, the CFTC is not in adherence with certain aspects of Principle 2—Independence, accountability, resourcing and legal protection for supervisors; Principle 3—Cooperation and collaboration; Principle 8—Supervisory approach; Principle 9—Supervisory techniques and tools; and Principle 11—Corrective and sanctioning powers of supervisors. These principles emphasize a supervisory approach that is risk-based and proportionate. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), of which the CFTC is a member and the current Vice Chair, has issued the IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation that are applicable to market regulators and are consistent with the BCBS Core Principles.[8] A full gap analysis and identification of specific areas for improvement for the CFTC under these international standards is necessary. International Monetary Fund Financial Sector Assessment Program The International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducts the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), which is a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of a country’s financial sector and includes the quality of the regulatory and supervisory framework.[9] In the IMF’s 2020 FSAP Financial System Stability Assessment (FSSA) for the United States, the IMF noted, “Supervision of swap dealers is also carried out by the NFA. The CFTC carries out oversight reviews of NFA’s supervisory activities, but it has not directly examined swap dealers.” The IMF further noted, “At the time of the [IMF’s] fieldwork, the CFTC had decided to initiate its own program of direct examinations, which was planned to begin in early 2020.” (emphasis added).[10] In the report recommendations, the IMF stated, “The CFTC should initiate direct examinations of swap dealers by CFTC staff, as had recently been proposed at the time of the [IMF’s] fieldwork.” (emphasis added).[11] I question why the CFTC has not implemented a direct examination program for swap dealers in the past four years since the CFTC represented to the IMF FSAP that the CFTC would do so in 2020. Four years is long enough that the CFTC should have been able to make at least some progress towards implementing a swap dealer examination program. Instead, the CFTC has inexplicably changed course and failed to make this a priority. Importantly, the IMF also identified challenges with the CFTC’s cross border regulation of derivatives in its 2020 report: “143. A further development since the last FSAP [in 2015] has been the adoption of various determinations of equivalence between aspects of U.S. and other jurisdictions’ regimes . . . Stakeholders welcomed these agreements, but some considered there was still a lack of clarity about the precise interaction between the regimes and extent of the substituted compliance, and that other obstacles remained.”[12] Proposed CFTC Swap Dealer Examination Program The Dodd-Frank Act created big shoes to fill for the CFTC by putting the agency front and center in the global regulation of swaps markets with extensive jurisdiction and authority over G-SIBs. While the SEC had a Dodd-Frank Congressional mandate to make sure the SEC would be up to the job, the CFTC had no similar mandate.[13] The unfortunate result is that the CFTC has not yet matured as an agency to fill those big shoes, and instead keeps tripping up because the CFTC does not have the resources or expertise to adequately implement its new Dodd-Frank authorities through an effective supervisory approach for swap dealers that is risk-based and proportionate. Accordingly, I have previously proposed organizational reforms and a GAO study and recommendations for improvement in order to ensure that the Commission has the internal operations, structure, technology, expertise, personnel, and funding to be effective in our oversight of commodity derivatives markets.[14] To illustrate the CFTC’s challenges, consider that the CFTC has promulgated extensive swap dealer regulations that include prudential requirements such as capital and risk management program rules, which interact and overlap with banking regulations in complex and sometimes duplicative or contradictory ways. Because of the CFTC’s lack of recognition and harmonization with other U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory regimes, the CFTC has often had to amend CFTC regulations or issue no-action letters to resolve these challenges. The IMF FSAP in 2020 highlighted this lack of regulatory clarity and the need for progress on cross border regulation and substituted compliance. It is well past time for the CFTC to establish a systemically important swap dealer examination program that is adequately resourced with qualified bank examiners that have the requisite expertise and experience to supervise G-SIBs in a complex regulatory environment involving both U.S. and non-U.S. regulations. This is especially urgent because I have noticed an alarming trend with respect to the CFTC’s use of NFA exam reports and findings in the CFTC’s enforcement actions against swap dealers.[15] The CFTC Must Not Abuse the NFA Examination Process It is in the public interest to promote transparency in the examination process and a positive and open relationship between NFA and CFTC registrants. Examinations are supposed to find issues—it means that the continuous improvement process is working. It is how issues are identified and remediated, and enhancements to a firm’s control framework are made. This is part of operational risk management pursuant to assurance and audit standards and regulatory requirements. An appropriate control environment includes policies and procedures, controls, monitoring, testing, and assessment. Just like going to the doctor for a physical exam, or taking a test in school to see how well you learned a new subject, finding issues is part of the process to diagnose problems and address them early on. I am troubled that too many of our recent enforcement actions have “mined” NFA exam reports in order to penalize CFTC registrants with hefty penalties for operational or technical issues that do not have any misconduct, harm to clients, or financial losses, and that every other major regulatory authority addresses through an examination program conducted by trained and qualified examiners.[16] These are mistakes, glitches, or other circumstances where systems and processes are not 100% perfect. Bringing an enforcement action against a firm because of a NFA exam report finding, especially if the finding is not a material non-compliance issue, is a “gotcha” approach that is inappropriately punitive and is an abuse of the examination process. Moreover, whacking firms for exam findings that have already been self-disclosed and remediated before the start of an enforcement investigation—sometimes years before the investigation began—will have the negative consequence of discouraging firms from being open and transparent with NFA during an examination because they will expect a CFTC enforcement action to follow directly onto the NFA exam report. It is a dangerous precedent for the CFTC to set and seriously undermines NFA’s mission and the examination process. Problems that go undiagnosed and untreated can turn into something much worse. The CFTC needs to take a hard look in the mirror and realize that bringing enforcement actions for routine exam findings is not done by any regulator in the world because it is the antithesis of risk-based supervision that is proportionate. This basic failure demonstrates that the CFTC simply does not currently have the expertise to properly supervise a bank and the right resources to ensure that our registrants have robust risk management and compliance programs.[17] There are thousands of certified examiners with years of specialized training at the Fed and each Federal Reserve Bank, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and NFA. The CFTC’s hubris in thinking that headline-grabbing enforcement actions are a substitute for a properly resourced examination program is unfortunate. As I have previously stated, examination by enforcement is inherently ad hoc, not applied consistently across market participants, and does not provide a horizontal view to inform the Commission of potential systemic risk.[18] Conclusion It is time for the CFTC to be held to the same standards as the rest of the world. The Commission must address the CFTC’s failure to implement appropriate supervisory oversight for systemically important swap dealers that is risk-based and proportionate and utilizes basic supervisory tools such as examinations. Until then, the CFTC should stop abusing the NFA examination process and undermining the NFA’s supervision of swap dealers that has been in place for over a decade since Dodd-Frank. [1] Certain non-U.S. swap dealers may elect to submit a copy of the home country compliance report to the CFTC, pursuant to substituted compliance, in lieu of filing the CFTC swap dealer annual compliance report. [2] See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Examination by Enforcement (Aug. 29, 2023), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement082923b. [3] Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Swap Data Reporting Settlement Order (Aug. 26, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement082624. [4] Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham on Self-Reporting and Cooperation Credit in Enforcement Actions (Aug. 19, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement081924. [5] Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), Core Principles for effective banking supervision (Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d573.htm. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation (May 2017), https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD561.pdf. [9] International Monetary Fund (IMF), Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fssa. [10] IMF, United States: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Securities—Fund Management; Equity and Derivatives Trading; and Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers (Aug. 10, 2020), https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/CR/2020/English/1USAEA2020003.ashx. [11] Id. [12] Id. [13] See Subtitle F—Improvements to the Management of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Investor Protection and Securities Reform Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act Title IX). [14] The CFTC Needs to Get Serious: A Strategic Plan for Reform, Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham Before the Open Meeting on May 10, 2024 (May 10, 2024), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/phamstatement051024. [15] This trend does not involve futures commission merchants (FCMs) to the same extent because NFA may not be the Designated Self-Regulatory Organization (DSRO) that examines certain FCMs. [16] Pham, supra note 1. [17] Id. [18] Id. RELATED LINKS CFTC Press Release No. 8988-24

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today announced an order filing and simultaneously settling charges against Barclays Bank PLC for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations relating to swap reporting. Barclays is registered with the CFTC as a swap dealer.  The order requires Barclays to pay a $4 million civil monetary penalty, cease and desist from violating the applicable provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations, and comply with certain conditions and undertakings. Barclays admitted the facts in the order and acknowledged its conduct violated the CEA and CFTC regulations. “Over the last year, the CFTC has imposed over $60 million in penalties on six registered swap dealers, including Barclays here, in connection with swap data reporting violations,” said Director of Enforcement Ian McGinley. “This resolution, which also includes admissions, reflects the division’s ongoing commitment to ensure the costs of violating the law outweigh the costs of compliance.” Case Background According to the order, from 2018 through 2023, Barclays failed to correctly report, or failed to timely report, millions of swap transactions in violation of the CEA and CFTC regulations. The reporting failures during the relevant period included misreporting due to the use of a duplicate swap identifier; incorrect reporting of primary economic terms; misreported time stamps; errors in connection with continuation data reporting; and late reporting. In total, aggregating all the categories of conduct, Barclays either did not correctly report, or did not timely report, more than five million swap transactions throughout 2018 to 2023.  In accepting Barclays’ Offer of Settlement, the CFTC recognized Barclays’ substantial cooperation during the Division of Enforcement’s investigation. Barclays’ cooperation included proactively flagging swap reporting issues for the CFTC during the investigation, and voluntarily providing detailed and specific information regarding the violations described in the order.  The CFTC also acknowledges Barclays’ representations concerning its remediation for this matter. This remediation includes voluntarily engaging third-party vendors to review and validate Barclays’ swap reporting processes.  The CFTC notes Barclays’ cooperation and remediation are recognized in the form of a reduced civil monetary penalty. The Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this action are Jason T. Wright, A. Daniel Ullman II, and Paul G. Hayeck, and former staff member Lauren Bennett. * * * * * * * Customers and other individuals can report suspicious activities or information, such as possible violations of commodity trading laws, to the Division of Enforcement via a toll-free hotline 866-FON-CFTC (866-366-2382), file a tip or complaint online, or contact the Whistleblower Office. Whistleblowers may be eligible to receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected, paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund financed through monetary sanctions paid to the CFTC by violators of the Commodity Exchange Act. RELATED LINKS Order: Barclays Bank PLC Statement of Commissioner Caroline D. Pham Statement

ACER publishes today its Opinion on the compliance of the draft joint Scenarios Report for the Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) 2024 with ACER’s Framework Guidelines. The draft joint Scenarios Report for the TYNDP is issued by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSOG) and electricity (ENTSO-E) every two years. ACER reviews the draft Scenarios Report to ensure compliance with its Framework Guidelines, allowing for a transparent, inclusive, and robust process to be established. What are ACER’s key findings? While welcoming some improvements in the scenarios’ development process, ACER’s assessment identifies several areas of non-compliance with its Framework Guidelines: Diverging scenarios: rather than developing different scenario variants based on economic factors, the ENTSOs created diverging scenarios, leading to less reliable results. Delayed process: scenarios’ development was delayed, negatively impacting other processes. Slower stakeholder group formation: the process of establishing the Stakeholder Reference Group took longer than expected, which impacted the stakeholder engagement’s overall effectiveness. Transparency: despite enhanced transparency and stakeholder consultations, the draft 2024 Scenarios Report still did not fully meet the transparency standards set by the Framework Guidelines. What are the next steps? ACER expects some of these issues to be addressed in the final 2024 Scenarios Report for the TYNDP and anticipates that ENTSOG and ENTSO-E will further tackle the remaining shortcomings in the 2026 scenarios. In line with the TEN-E Regulation, the European Commission will review the draft joint Scenarios Report for TYNDP and, taking into account ACER’s Opinion, it will either approve it or ask the ENTSOs for amendments. Read more.

In September, the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer recorded its lowest readings since March 2016. Declining income expectations pushed farmer sentiment down as the barometer fell 12 points to 88, and the Index of Future Expectations dropped 14 points to 94. The Index of Current Conditions also fell 7 points to 76, which nearly matched levels seen in April 2020, during the height of COVID-19 concerns for farmers. This month's survey was conducted from Sept. 9-13, 2024. September's survey revealed that farmers are increasingly worried about commodity prices, input costs, agricultural trade prospects and the potential impact of the upcoming election on their farm operations. When asked to identify their top concerns for the coming year, low commodity prices and high input costs were nearly tied, with 34% of farmers citing input prices and 33% pointing to lower output prices as their primary concerns. Interest rates trailed behind as a top concern for 17% of respondents. Producers' apprehensions about commodity prices matched up with their lack of confidence in the future of U.S. agricultural exports; only 26% of respondents expect exports to rise over the next five years, the most pessimistic response to this question since it was first introduced in 2019. Additionally, 78% of producers expressed concern that government policy changes following the fall 2024 elections could impact their farms. "The continued drop in the barometer reflects deepening concerns among farmers regarding expectations for farm income in 2024 and 2025," said  James Mintert, the barometer's principal investigator and director of Purdue University's Center for Commercial Agriculture. "It's notable that producer sentiment dropped back to levels last seen in 2016 when the U.S. farm economy was in the early stages of an economic downturn. In addition to commodity prices and input costs weighing heavily on their operations, producers are also facing considerable uncertainty about what lies ahead for their farms with the possible government policy changes following the upcoming 2024 elections." The Farm Financial Performance Index fell for the third consecutive month, dropping to 68 in September from 72 in August. Farmers' financial expectations have declined markedly compared to a year ago, as the index was at 86 in September 2023 — an 18-point difference. While the Farm Capital Investment Index increased by 4 points from August to a reading of 35, it sits just above its all-time low, indicating that many producers believe it is not an opportune time for making large investments. The Short-Term Farmland Value Expectations Index dropped by 10 points to 95. This is the first time since 2020 that the index fell below 100, indicating that more farmers are expecting a decline in farmland values over the next year than those who anticipate an increase. This month's shift from a positive to a weaker outlook is attributable to a significant decrease in the percentage of producers forecasting rising values and a rise in those who expect values to remain steady. The September survey marks the fourth consecutive year that the barometer has included questions regarding cover crop usage among corn and soybean producers. Consistent with prior years' surveys, more than half of the respondents indicated that they currently plant cover crops on part of their farms, while an additional 1 in 5 farmers reported planting cover crops sometime in the past. Interestingly, farmers who currently use cover crops say they are devoting a larger proportion of their farm's acreage to cover crops than in the past. In 2021, 41% of cover crop users noted planting them on more than 25% of their farm's acreage. This figure rose to 50% in 2023, and in this year's survey, 68% of cover crop users indicated planting cover crops on more than one-fourth of their farms.

Deutsche Börse’s cash markets generated a turnover of €103.83 billion in September (previous year: 95.07 billion / previous month: €98.76 billion).€100.95 billion were attributable to Xetra (previous year: €92.55 billion / previous month: €95.59 billion), bringing the average daily Xetra trading volume to €4.81 billion (previous year: €4,41 billion / previous month: €4.35 billion). Trading volumes on Börse Frankfurt were €2.88 billion (previous year: €2.52 billion / previous month: €3.17 billion).By type of asset class, equities accounted for €84.21 billion in the entire cash market. Trading in ETFs/ETCs/ETNs generated a turnover of €17.98 billion. Turnover in bonds was €0.86 billion, in certificates €0.73 billion and in funds €0.04 billion.The DAX stock with the highest turnover on Xetra in September was SAP SE with €6.27 billion. Lufthansa AG led the MDAX with €658.58 million, while Renk Group AG led the SDAX index with €182.60 million. In the ETF segment the iShares Core EURO STOXX 50 UCITS ETF generated the largest volume with €1.33 billion. Trading volumes September 2024 in billion euros: Xetra Frankfurt  Total Equities 83.08 1.14 84.21 ETFs/ETCs/ETNs 17.87 0.11 17.98 Bonds - 0.86 0.86 Certificates - 0.73 0.73 Funds - 0.04 0.04 September ‘24 in total 100.95 2.88 103.83 August ‘24 in total 95.59 3.17 98.76 September ‘23 in total 92.55 2.52 95.07 Further details are available in Deutsche Börse’s cash market statistics. For a pan-European comparison of trading venues, see the statistics provided by the Federation of European Securities Exchanges (FESE).

Nasdaq (Nasdaq:NDAQ) today publishes monthly trade statistics for the Nordic1 and Baltic2 markets. Below follows a summary of the statistics for September 2024: The share trading increased by 13.8% to a daily average of 2.811bn EUR, compared to 2.469bn EUR in September 2023. Compared to the previous month, August 2024, the daily average increased by 7.9%. Cleared derivatives volume increased by 6.4% to a daily average of 288,769 contracts, compared with 271,343 contracts in September 2023. ETF trading3 (Exchange Traded Funds) decreased by 26.2% to a daily average of 25.3m EUR compared to 34.2m EUR in September 2023. Novo Nordisk A/S was the most traded stock per day during the past month, followed by Nordea Bank Abp. Goldman Sachs Bank Europe SE was the most active member during the past month, followed by Morgan Stanley Europe SE. Nasdaq Nordic’s share of order-book trading in our listed stocks decreased to 71.9%, compared to 72.1% previous month4. The average order book depth on the best price level was larger at Nasdaq Nordic than the second most liquid trading venue, see detailed figures per exchange: For OMXC25 companies 1.9 larger For OMXH25 companies 2.0 larger For OMXS30 companies 2.4 larger Nasdaq Nordic’s average time at EBBO5 (European Best Bid and Offer) was: For OMXC25 companies 92.1% For OMXH25 companies 90.2% For OMXS30 companies 92.6% 1)   Nasdaq Copenhagen, Helsinki, Iceland and Stockholm 2)   Nasdaq Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius. 3)     ETF trading figure include Nasdaq Copenhagen, Helsinki, Iceland and Stockholm. 4)     Included are the main European marketplaces that offer trading in Nasdaq Nordic listed shares. Source: REFINITIV, Equity Market Share Reporter. 5)     EBBO (European Best Bid and Offer) refers to the current best price available for selling or buying a trading instrument such as a stock.

SIX publishes the monthly key figures of SIX Swiss Exchange and BME Exchange on trading and listing activities in Switzerland and Spain. Combined Key Figures SIX Swiss Exchange & BME Exchange Combined Figures* Month MOM Change YOY ChangeYTDYTD Change Turnover in CHF mn 130,600 20.4% 12.8% 1,213,746 6.8% Turnover in EUR mn 138,450  20.0%  15.5%  1,286,692  9.4%  Transactions 6,030,187  1.7%  10.8%  59,108,234  6.4%  SMI 12,168.9  -2.2%  11.0%  n.a.  9.3%  IBEX 35 11,877.3 4.2%  26.0%  n.a. 17.6%  *includes provisional figures for all respective trading segments for SIX Swiss Exchange and BME Exchange (except Financial Derivatives); for indices, ‘YTD Change’ refers to the change since beginning of the year. Exchange rate provided by the SIX currency converter. Key Figures SIX Swiss Exchange Trading turnover of CHF 98,411 million (+23.5% YOY Change) 3,978,289 transactions (+18.0% YOY Change) SMI index at 12,168.9 points at the end of the month (+9.3% YTD Change) Segment Month (in CHF mn) MOM Change YOY ChangeYTDYTD Change Turnover Equities** 71,045 20.9% 10.4% 597,230 -2.4% Turnover Fixed Income 20,067  22.9%  95.2%  252,091  125.4%  Turnover ETF 6,693  -17.7%  50.6%  56,605  30.5% Turnover Securitized Derivatives 606 -25.3% 0.4% 6,625 7.7% Turnover Total 98,411 17.1% 23.5% 912,551 18.1%               Month MOM Change YOY Change YTD YTD Change Transactions Equities** 3,716,519 1.7% 16.8% 33,767,559 3.8% Transactions Fixed Income 32,323 8.6% 1.6% 315,632 -3.6% Transactions ETF 196,951 -15.2% 51.7% 1,745,580 37.1% Transactions Securitized Derivatives 32,496 -15.4% 9.9% 336,193 12.7% Transactions Total 3,978,289 0.6% 18.0% 36,164,964 5.1% **incl. Funds + ETPs Product Listing Month MOM Change YOY ChangeYTDYTD Change Number Product Listings Fixed Income 62 416.7% 12.7% 349 2.6% Volume Listed via Fixed Income  (CHF mn) 13,929 527.1% 4.2% 85,797 -4.4% Number Product Listings Securitized Derivatives 8,841 -9.9% 9.6% 83,659 9.9% Swiss Indices Month End Reading Change Versus End of Previous Month Change Since End of Last Year SMI® PR 12,168.9 -2.2% 9.3% SLI Swiss Leader Index®  PR 1,993.1 -1.1% 12.2% SMIM® PR 2,728.8 1.0% 6.4% SPI® TR 16,241.9 -1.6% 11.5% SPI EXTRA® TR 5,420.1 0.6% 9.3% SXI LIFE SCIENCES® TR 7,341.0 -1.8% 19.9% SXI Bio+Medtech® TR 4,800.3 -2.3% 5.1% SBI® AAA-BBB Total Return 136.8 0.7% 4.0% Key Figures BME Exchange Turnover in Equities +16.9% in September and +5.7% YTD Fixed Income transactions +61.4% in September Number of Equity Options +10.4% in September Segment Month (in EUR mn) MOM Change YOY ChangeYTDYTD Change Turnover Equities           22,339   16.9% 9.5%          239,974   5.7% Turnover Fixed Income           11,680   62.7% -30.4%             78,333   -47.1% Turnover ETF                   76   -0.3% -45.6%                   771   -20.6% Turnover Securitized Derivatives                   29   44.5% -8.6%                   219   -25.4% Turnover Total           34,124   29.3% -8.6%          319,297   -15.2%               Month MOM Change YOY Change YTD YTD Change Transactions Equities 2,039,885 3.8% -0.8%    22,843,087   8.8% Transactions Fixed Income               1,942 61.4% -28.1%             17,306   -29.9% Transactions ETF               5,926 -8.0% -21.9%             48,615   -25.6% Transactions Securitized Derivatives               4,145 13.5% -13.1%             34,262   -18.8% Transactions Total      2,051,898 3.8% -0.9%    22,943,270   8.6% Product Listing Month MOM Change YOY ChangeYTDYTD Change Number Product Listings Fixed Income                   415 299.0% -14.6% 2,981 -34.7% Volume Listed via Fixed Income (in EUR mn)             33,848 90.2% 28.1% 277,459 -14.0% Number Product Listings Securitized Derivatives n.a. 0.0% -100.0% 5,067 -21.8% Financial DerivativesTraded Contracts Month MOM Change YOYChangeYTDYTDChangeTurnover(EUR mn) IBEX 35 Futures 364 2.2% -2.1% 3,310 -3.2% 42,250 Mini IBEX 35 Futures 43 -29.8% -29.3% 471 2.2% 493 IBEX 35 Options 37 65.6% 16.9% 515 31.1% 411 Stock Futures 941 15384.2% -69.6% 8,088 -20.1% 518 Stock Options 1,294 44.5% 10.4% 8,084 -9.3% 1,354 Power Derivatives (MW) 311 217.6% 20.3% 5,058 50.6% 22 Spanish Indices Month-End Reading Change Versus End of Previous Month Change Since End of Last Year IBEX 35       11,877.3   4.2% 17.6% IBEX Medium Cap       14,738.9   2.1% 8.8% IBEX Small Cap         8,355.7   -1.3% 5.2% IBEX Grow 15         1,529.4   0.0% -15.3% VIBEX                12.7   10.9% 2.4% Detailed statistics on turnover and transaction volumes per segment compared with the previous month and previous year, on newly listed products and on the development of the most important indices can be found in the tables below. The website of SIX Swiss Exchange provides you with full access to our complete information offering. We provide you with the latest market data and comprehensive statistics for our entire securities universe. This includes order book information, prices, volumes and turnover figures as well as historical data and statistics. We also provide official notices of listed companies, management transactions and other relevant information to ensure safe and transparent trading. Discover more. More Detailed Information Statistical Monthly Report Statistical Monthly Report Intraday Activity Intraday Activity

During the first half of 2024, ASIC took action against the registration of 13 approved self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) auditors. ASIC’s concerns covered a range of topics, including breaches of auditing and assurance standards, independence requirements, continuing professional development obligations, or for not being a fit and proper person to remain an approved SMSF auditor. This action is in addition to the 15 SMSF auditors, engaged in ‘in-house audits,’ that ASIC announced it acted against in March 2024 (24-043MR). SMSF auditors are key gatekeepers responsible for the growing SMSF sector, providing assurance for 625,609 SMSFs with total estimated assets of over $990 billion. SMSF auditors are crucial to upholding the integrity and confidence in the SMSF regime. ASIC will continue to take action where conduct is not up to standard. Between 1 January 2024 and 30 June 2024, ASIC: disqualified seven SMSF auditors, suspended one SMSF auditor (after the original disqualification decision was varied upon their request for reconsideration), imposed additional conditions on four SMSF auditors, and cancelled the registration of one SMSF auditor. Tak Cheng, Lin Chou, Kristian Convery, John Giannicos, Mark Gynther, John Hamilton, Md Nazrul Islam and Kylie Wee were disqualified from being SMSF auditors. All eight SMSF auditors requested ASIC reconsider its disqualification decision and the disqualifications in each case were confirmed, except Ms Wee’s application. Ms Wee’s disqualification was in effect from 14 June 2024 until 27 August 2024. On 27 August 2024, Ms Wee’s disqualification was revoked and varied, upon her request for reconsideration, to a suspension of three years and three months and additional conditions were imposed on her registration for completion after the suspension period. Ms Wee’s suspension commenced on 19 September 2024. Mr Islam has applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the confirmed disqualification decision and this review is ongoing. Mr Convery also applied to the AAT for a stay and review of the confirmed disqualification decision. Both of Mr Convery’s applications were dismissed by the AAT. Mohammed Bhuiyan, Paul Judge, Yan Liu and Liushui Xie had additional conditions imposed on their SMSF auditor registration. Conditions are specific to the auditor and the relevant deficient conduct (see the SMSF Auditor register), and impose various obligations such as undertaking additional professional development, passing the SMSF auditor competency exam and independent review of SMSF audit files. Max Haber had his SMSF auditor registration cancelled. All SMSF auditors were referred to ASIC by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). ASIC’s approved SMSF auditor decisions in FY24 Between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024, ASIC has made 46 decisions in relation to the registration of approved SMSF auditors: disqualified 15 SMSF auditors, imposed additional conditions on 24 SMSF auditors, suspended one SMSF auditor, and cancelled the registration of six SMSF auditors. Background Approved SMSF auditors are registered with ASIC under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act). ASIC and the ATO work closely together as co-regulators of SMSF auditors. The ATO monitors SMSF auditor conduct and can refer matters to ASIC. ASIC also monitors the SMSF auditor population for non-compliance and is empowered to disqualify, suspend, cancel or impose additional conditions on the registration of SMSF auditors. ASIC may make an order disqualifying or suspending a person from being an approved SMSF auditor, under section 130F of the SIS Act, if the person has failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties and functions of an auditor or is not a fit and proper person to be an approved SMSF auditor. The order disqualifying a person from being an approved SMSF auditor must be published by notifiable instrument detailed in ASIC’s Regulatory Resources. A disqualified SMSF auditor is placed on ASIC’s public banned and disqualified register at connectonline.asic.gov.au and is not eligible to reapply for registration unless the disqualification is revoked. ASIC may impose conditions on an SMSF auditor’s registration under section 128D of the SIS Act or may cancel the registration of an SMSF auditor under section 128E of the SIS Act for non-compliance with conditions or failing to lodge annual statements in the required timeframe. SMSF auditors have the right to seek review of decisions that ASIC makes in relation to their registration under the SIS Act. They may request that ASIC reconsider a decision it has made against them. If the decision is confirmed or varied the SMSF auditor may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for further review of the confirmed or varied decision. Further information can be found on ASIC's website and in Regulatory Guide 243 Registration of self-managed superannuation fund auditors. SMSF trustees and members can check whether their auditor is registered, suspended or has conditions imposed on their registration by searching ASIC's SMSF Auditor register.

TD Securities (USA) LLC (TD Securities), a securities firm based in New York, has entered into a resolution with the Justice Department to resolve criminal charges concerning a scheme to defraud that involved hundreds of episodes of unlawful trading in the secondary (cash) market for U.S. Treasuries. TD Securities entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) in connection with a criminal information filed today in the District of New Jersey charging the company with one count of wire fraud. Under the terms of the DPA, TD Securities will pay over $15.5 million in a criminal monetary penalty, forfeiture, and victim compensation. Under the DPA, TD Securities will pay the equivalent of the statutory maximum criminal fine in connection with the offense (approximately $9.4 million) and will ensure that victims of the offense are made whole through a claims administration process (approximately $4.7 million in victim compensation).  The former head of the TD Securities desk that was responsible for trading U.S. Treasuries, Jeyakumar Nadarajah, was indicted on Nov. 7, 2023, in the District of New Jersey connection with this scheme and is awaiting trial. “TD Securities placed hundreds of orders to buy and sell U.S. Treasuries that it never intended to execute, in order to deceive market participants and manipulate prices by creating the false appearance of supply and demand,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Such efforts to profit through unlawful trading undermine public confidence in U.S. Treasuries markets and defraud other market participants. The Criminal Division is committed to ensuring the integrity of our financial markets and holding accountable those who engage in deceptive trading practices.” “The American public places trust in our financial institutions and relies on companies to be truthful and execute their obligations to traders in an ethical manner,” said Inspector in Charge Eric Shen of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)’s Criminal Investigations Group. “The USPIS’ DOJ Mail Fraud team found there was a blatant violation of that trust, as this individual placed billions of dollars in spoof orders, distorting supply and demand and causing significant losses. These charges send a clear message that such deceptive practices will not be tolerated, and we are dedicated to protecting the integrity of our markets and the interests of honest investors.” According to court documents and admissions, Nadarajah, a former director and head of the TD Securities U.S. Treasuries trading desk, engaged in a scheme to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of U.S. Treasuries in the secondary market. In hundreds of instances, Nadarajah placed orders to buy and sell U.S. Treasuries with the intent to cancel those orders before execution. Nadarajah did so in an attempt to profit by injecting false and misleading information concerning the existence of genuine supply and demand for U.S. Treasuries, thereby deceiving other market participants and fraudulently inducing those participants to trade at prices, quantities, and times that they otherwise would not have traded. As part of the DPA, TD Securities, and its U.S. parent company, TD Group US Holdings LLC (TDGUS), have agreed to, among other things, continue to cooperate with the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section in any ongoing or future investigations by the Fraud Section begun before or during the term of the DPA. As part of its cooperation, TD Securities and TDGUS are required to report evidence or allegations of conduct that may constitution a violation of the U.S. anti-fraud, securities, and commodities laws as defined in the DPA. In addition, TD Securities and TDGUS have also agreed to enhance TD Securities’ compliance program where necessary and appropriate, and to report to the government regarding remediation and implementation of their enhanced compliance program. The department reached this resolution with TD Securities based on numerous factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offense conduct, which involved placing hundreds of fraudulent spoof orders amounting to tens of billions of dollars of false supply and demand in the secondary market for U.S. Treasuries, and TD Securities’ failure to voluntarily self-disclose the offense conduct to the department. TD Securities received credit for its cooperation with the department’s investigation and for remedial measures taken, including terminating Nadarajah, and reviewing and continuing to enhance the compliance function. Today, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority announced a separate settlement with TD Securities in connection with a related, parallel proceeding. Under the terms of that resolution, TD Securities agreed to pay a fine of approximately $6 million. Also today, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a separate settlement with TD Securities in connection with a related, parallel proceeding. Under the terms of that resolution, TD Securities agreed to pay approximately $7 million, which includes a civil monetary penalty of approximately $6.5 million, as well as approximately $400,000 in disgorgement and $135,000 in prejudgment interest. A portion of the forfeiture agreed to in the department’s DPA will be credited against payments made to the SEC under a separate agreement with the SEC. USPIS is investigating the case. Trial Attorney John J. Liolos of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section is prosecuting the case. Former Deputy Assistant Chief Scott Armstrong of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section provided substantial assistance. 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against James R. Craigie, a former CEO, Chairman, and board member of Church & Dwight Co. Inc., for violating proxy disclosure rules by standing for election as an independent director without informing the board of his close personal friendship with a high-ranking Church & Dwight executive thereby causing Church & Dwight’s proxy statements to contain materially misleading statements. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Craigie agreed to resolve the SEC’s charges. If the settlement is approved, Craigie will be subject to a five-year officer-and-director bar. The SEC’s complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that, between January 2020 and March 2023, Craigie maintained a close personal relationship with a member of Church & Dwight’s executive team. Among other things, Craigie frequently vacationed with the executive and the executive’s spouse, including six trips that spanned eight countries on five continents. Craigie paid more than $100,000 for them to join Craigie and his spouse on several of these international vacations. According to the SEC’s complaint, Craigie never disclosed his relationship with the executive to Church & Dwight and he allegedly encouraged the executive to conceal the relationship as well. As a result, the company’s board was unaware of Craigie’s personal relationship with the executive, and the company’s proxy statements subsequently identified Craigie as an independent director. Craigie ultimately served as an independent board member from 2019 to 2023. When Church & Dwight began a CEO succession process, Craigie allegedly shared confidential details about the process with the executive and took steps to better position the executive for succession in the future. Once Church & Dwight learned of Craigie’s relationship with the executive, it determined that he was not an independent director. “Shareholders expect independent directors to exercise autonomous judgment in their decision making, free from undisclosed conflicts,” said Mark Cave, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “By concealing his relationship with a company executive, Mr. Craigie undermined the board’s director independence process and compromised the company’s disclosures.” Without admitting or denying the allegations, Craigie agreed to be permanently enjoined from further violations of the proxy provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, pay a civil penalty of $175,000, and a five-year officer-and-director bar. The settlement is subject to court approval. The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Elliot Weingarten and James Valentino, assisted by Tonya Tullis and David Nasse, and supervised by Sarah Lamoree, Jeffrey Weiss, and Mr. Cave. Resources SEC Complaint

Cboe Global Markets, Inc. (Cboe: CBOE), the world's leading derivatives and securities exchange network, will announce its financial results for the third quarter of 2024 before the market opens on Friday, November 1, 2024. A conference call with remarks by the company's senior management will begin at 7:30 a.m. CT (8:30 a.m. ET). A live audio webcast for the conference call and the presentation that will be referenced during the call will be available on the Investor Relations section of Cboe's website at ir.cboe.com under Events. The presentation will be archived on the company's website for replay. A replay of the recording is expected to be available two hours after the conference call ends. To listen to the live conference call via telephone, please dial (800) 715-9871 (toll-free) or (646) 307-1963 (toll) and use the Conference ID 6762730.

Today, Robinhood Markets, Inc. (“Robinhood”) (NASDAQ: HOOD) announced that it will release its third quarter 2024 financial results on Wednesday, October 30, 2024, after market close. An earnings conference call will be held at 2:00 PM PT / 5:00 PM ET on the same day. A live webcast of the call and supporting materials will be available at investors.robinhood.com. Following the call, a replay and transcript will also be available on the same website. Robinhood shareholders can submit and upvote questions for management using the Q&A platform developed by Say Technologies ahead of the call. Shareholders can visit app.saytechnologies.com/robinhood-markets-2024-q3 to submit questions. The Q&A platform will be open for question submission starting Wednesday, October 23, 2024, at 2:00 PM PT / 5:00 PM ET. Shareholders will be able to submit and upvote questions until Tuesday, October 29, 2024, at 2:00 PM PT / 5:00 PM ET. Management will address a selection of the most upvoted questions relating to Robinhood’s business and financial results on the earnings call. Shareholders can email hello@saytechnologies.com for any support inquiries.

STOXX Ltd. has announced unscheduled changes to the SDAX and TecDAX indices. Following the spin-off of PENTIXAPHARM HLDG NA O.N. from Eckert & Ziegler SE, adjustments of the indices are required.  On 3 October 2024, PENTIXAPHARM HLDG NA O.N. will be included in the SDAX and TecDAX for one day. These adjustments ensure the trackability of the indices for investors. The SDAX index will be calculated based on 71 companies for one day, the TecDAX index will be calculated based on 31 companies for one day. As per rule 8.4 of the DAX Equity Index Calculation Guide (Spin-offs), the total number of shares and free float used for PENTIXAPHARM HLDG NA O.N. in the indices are given by the parent share (Eckert & Ziegler SE) in the index and the ratio for the spin-off.  At the closing of Xetra-trading on 3 October, PENTIXAPHARM HLDG NA O.N. is taken out of the SDAX and TecDAX indices again. SDAX® and TecDAX® are registered trademarks of ISS STOXX Index GmbH.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against registered broker-dealer TD Securities (USA) LLC for manipulating the U.S. Treasury cash securities market through an illicit trading strategy known as spoofing. The bank was also charged for failing to supervise the then-head of its U.S. Treasuries trading desk, who allegedly made hundreds of illegal trades over a 13-month period. According to the SEC's order, between April 2018 and May 2019, the former TD Securities trader spoofed the U.S. Treasury cash securities market by entering orders on one side of the market that he had no intention of executing (herein, non-bona fide orders), so he could obtain more favorable execution prices on bona fide orders he was entering simultaneously on the other side of the market. After the bona fide orders were filled, resulting in profits to TD Securities, the trader allegedly then canceled the non-bona fide orders. The SEC’s order also finds that TD Securities lacked adequate controls and that it failed to take reasonable steps to scrutinize the trader after receiving warnings of his potentially irregular trading activity. “Manipulative and deceptive trading undermines the integrity of our markets,” said Mark Cave, Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Broker-dealers and other firms cannot ignore their employees’ manipulative conduct and must take meaningful steps to detect and prevent it. Today’s action results from our continuing commitment to combating illicit trading.” TD Securities consented to the entry of the SEC’s order finding that it violated an antifraud provision of the federal securities laws and  failed to reasonably supervise the trader. TD Securities was further ordered to cease and desist from future violations of the relevant antifraud provision, was censured, and was ordered to pay disgorgement of $400,000, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty of $6.5 million. In a related matter, TD Securities has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and has agreed to pay a total monetary sanction of more than $15 million as part of that agreement, of which $400,000 will be credited by disgorgement to the SEC. TD Securities has separately agreed to pay a $6 million fine to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to resolve related charges. The SEC's investigation was conducted by Bobby Gray, Edward Patterson, and Devon Staren of the Division of Enforcement, with assistance from Eugene Canjels, Stuart Jackson, Elizabeth Luh, and Raymond Wolff of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis under the supervision of Sarah Hall and Mr. Cave. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Fraud Section of DOJ’s Criminal Division and FINRA. Resources SEC Order

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged John LoPinto, Robert Wilkos, and Laren Pisciotti for their roles in a fraudulent scheme involving investments in pre-IPO private companies. The SEC also charged several companies owned and/or controlled by the defendants: the Pre IPO Marketplace Inc.; Keyport Venture Partners LLC; Keyport Venture Management LLC; and Keyport Venture Advisors LLC, which were jointly owned and/or controlled by LoPinto and Wilkos; and Principal Pre-IPO Consulting Group LLC and GlobalX VC LLC, which were owned or controlled by Pisciotti. The SEC complaint alleges that from at least October 2019 until December 2022, the defendants raised approximately $120 million from more than 900 investors in the U.S. and abroad by selling interests in private funds that supposedly held shares in pre-IPO companies, that is, privately held companies that had not yet conducted an initial public offering. The SEC alleges that the defendants, directly and through sales agents, told investors numerous lies about the supposed investments, including that there were no upfront fees in the investments while in fact paying themselves at least $16 million in commissions; that the funds were registered with the SEC when they were not; and that the funds owned shares in pre-IPO companies when they did not. In addition, according to the complaint, LoPinto used an alias to conduct business to hide his disciplinary history, which includes prior sanctions by the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA. The complaint also alleges that many investors never received the pre-IPO shares that they were promised and for which they invested with the defendants. “As alleged, among other lies, the defendants lied about the shares they owned and about fees they said they wouldn’t charge, and in the end, they took millions of their investors' money for themselves,” said Stacy L. Bogert, Associate Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Today we start the process of holding them accountable for their fraudulent conduct.” The SEC’s complaint charges the defendants with violating the antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeks permanent injunctive relief, return of allegedly ill-gotten gains together with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties from all defendants. The complaint also seeks industry and officer-and-director bars against LoPinto, Wilkos, and Pisciotti. Wilkos has agreed to settle the case and consent to injunctive relief, with the court determining additional remedies at a later date.  The SEC’s ongoing investigation is being conducted by Randall D. Friedland, Elizabeth Doisy, Eleanor J.G. Wasserman, and Jeffrey Anderson and is supervised by Pei Y. Chung, Peter Rosario, and Ms. Bogert. The litigation will be led by John Timmer and Daniel Ball and supervised by James Connor. Investors can learn more about the risks of investing in pre-IPO offerings in this Investor Alert. The pre-IPO space remains a priority area for the Division of Enforcement. The SEC previously has filed charges in matters including: In August 2024, the Commission charged a China-based investment adviser, its US-based holding company, and CEO of both entities in a $6 million pre-IPO fraud. In December 2023, the Commission charged five individuals and four companies in a $528 million pre-IPO fraud. In August 2023, the Commission obtained emergency relief in a $4.2 million pre-IPO fraud. In June 2023, the Commission obtained emergency relief against an unregistered broker-dealer for a pre-IPO fraud. In June 2024, the Commission charged three individuals who worked on behalf of that broker-dealer in a $184 million pre-IPO fraud. In May 2022, the Commission obtained emergency relief to stop a $410 million pre-IPO fraud. In March 2023, the Commission charged three sales agents for selling interests in that pre-IPO fraud. In December 2020, the Commission charged a boiler room operator with defrauding retail investors in the sale of pre-IPO shares. Resources SEC Complaint