, the CFTC’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is
and Plaintiffs’Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
DENIED AS MOOT
ISDA is a trade association with more than 825 members that “represents participants inthe privately negotiated derivatives industry.” (Compl. ¶ 9). SIFMA is an “association of hundreds of securities firms, banks, and asset managers” whose claimed mission is to “support astrong financial industry, investor opportunity, capital formation, job creation, and economicgrowth, while building trust and confidence in the financial markets.” (Id. ¶ 10). According toPlaintiffs, the commodity derivatives markets are “crucial for helping producers and purchasersof commodities manage risk, ensuring sufficient market liquidity for bona fide hedgers, andpromoting price discovery of the underlying market.” (Id. ¶ 15). The CFTC, of course, is anagency of the U.S. government with regulatory authority over the commodity derivatives market.
Relevant Derivatives Contracts
Three types of commodity derivatives are implicated in this case: futures contracts,options contracts and swaps. (Dkt. No. 31 at 5). A futures contract is a contract between partiesto buy or sell a specific quantity of a commodity at a particular date and location in the future.(Id. at 3). An options contract is a contract between parties where the buyer has the right, but notthe obligation, to buy or sell a specific quantity of a commodity at a point in the future. (Id.).
The Court finds it appropriate to consolidate consideration of the cross motions forsummary judgment with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction given that: the PositionLimits Rule has not yet gone into effect; briefing on summary judgment is ripe; the parties havehad a full and fair opportunity to present their entire cases on the merits and, thus, there is noprejudice from consolidation; and the parties have concurred that this case is properly disposedof on summary judgment. See Fed. Civ. P. Rule 65(a)(2); see also 11A Charles Alan Wright,Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2950, 239 (2d ed. 1995)(stating that consolidation will be considered proper “if it is clear that consolidation did notdetrimentally affect the litigants as, for example, when the parties in fact presented their entirecases . . . .”).