Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 11 of 21 PAGEID #: 904
whole or in part, the financial risk associated with a future change in any such value or level without also conveying a current or future direct or indirect ownership interest in an asset (including any enterprise or investment pool) or liability that incorporates the financial risk so transferred[.]
7 U.S.C. §§ 1a(47)(A). Subsection (iii) goes on to list specific examples of swaps,
including: an interest rate swap; a foreign exchange swap; an equity index swap; a
debt swap; a credit spread; a weather swap; an energy swap; a metal swap; an
agricultural swap; an emissions swap; and a commodity swap. Canons of statutory
interpretation counsel courts to “avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad
that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words[.]” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co. , 513
U.S. 561, 575 (1995). Applying this canon to the CEA, Ohio argues that swaps are
limited to “events and contingencies that have a . . . direct and inherent association
with matters of financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” (Resp., 12.)
Both interpretations of the CEA are textually permissible, but Ohio’s better
serves the purpose of the statute. By enacting the CEA, Congress sought to serve
the national public interest of “managing and assuming price risks, discovering
prices, or disseminating pricing information” by establishing a system to deter
market disruptions, ensure financial integrity, avoid systemic risk, protect market
participants from fraud and abuse, and promote responsible innovation. 7 U.S.C.
§ 5. These goals are better achieved when a “swap” is understood as a transaction
involving financial instruments and measures that traditionally and directly affect
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs