• #
      • CME 11-8292-BC
      • Effective Date
      • 28 July 2014
    • FILE NO.:

      CME 11-8292-BC


      Kyte Broking Limited


      Rule 432 (“General Offenses”) (in part)

      It shall be an offense:

      W. for a Member to fail to diligently supervise its employees and agents in the conduct of their business relating to the Exchange.

      Rule 539. Prearranged, Pre-Negotiated, and Noncompetitive Trades Prohibited (in part)

      C. Pre-Execution Communications Regarding Globex Trades

      Parties may engage in pre-execution communications with regard to transactions executed on the Globex platform where one party (the first party) wishes to be assured that a contra party (the second party) will take the opposite side of the order under the following circumstances:

      (4) In the case of options orders, subsequent to the pre-execution communication, a Request for Quote (“RFQ”) for the particular option or option spread or combination must be entered into Globex. Thereafter, a Request for Cross (“RFC”) order which contains both the buy and the sell orders must be entered into Globex no less than fifteen (15) seconds and no more than thirty (30) seconds after the entry of the RFQ. The RFQ and the RFC order must be entered within the same trading session. Failure to enter the RFC order within 30 seconds after the entry of the RFQ will require a new RFQ to be entered prior to the entry of the RFC order, which must be entered in accordance with the time parameters described above in order to proceed with the trade.

      Rule 576. Identification of Globex Terminal Operators

      Each Globex terminal operator shall be identified to the Exchange, in the manner prescribed by the Exchange, and shall be subject to Exchange rules. If user IDs are required to be registered with the Exchange, it is the duty of the clearing member to ensure that registration is current and accurate at all times. Each individual must use a unique user ID to access Globex. In no event may a person enter an order or permit the entry of an order by an individual using a user ID other than the individual’s own unique user ID.


      Pursuant to an offer of settlement in which Kyte Broking Limited (“Kyte”) neither admitted nor denied the rule violations upon which the penalty is based, on July 24, 2014, a Panel of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that Kyte voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the BCC for purposes of settling this matter, and that between January 2011 and April 2011, in different expiries of Eurodollar options on futures contracts, Kyte failed to supervise its brokers who crossed trades without adhering to the requisite Request for Quote and Request for Cross procedures. Additionally, during this time period, Kyte allowed six different brokers to use the same Tag 50.

      As a result, the Panel found that Kyte violated Rules 432.W., 539, and 576.


      In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered Kyte to pay a fine of $50,000.


      July 28, 2014