Treasury futures forced open dispute case analysis

Add Date:2015/7/1 Hits:1787 Font Size:S M L BACK
Introduction [case] January 29, 1995 the plaintiff to the defendant to make bond futures, and the defendant signed a "bond futures Client Agreement" and "Risk Disclosure Statement bond futures." "Statement" stipulates that if when the market trend is not conducive to bond futures contracts held by the plaintiff, the defendant may make margin calls, once, please do so as scheduled. As the plaintiff was unable to provide the requested within the required time limit funding contracts will be hedged their positions, the account deficit plaintiff arising therefrom should bear full responsibility. February 20 the same year, 21 the plaintiff in the defendant sold twice punished code 337 bond futures contract was 100, with an average price of 137.4 yuan per port. February 23, due to greater volatility of Treasury futures, the plaintiff has the initial margin below its maintenance margin levels. The defendant in the morning that day must notify the plaintiff paid margin calls, but the plaintiff did not fully paid margin in the day, so the next morning the plaintiff accused code 337 100 bonds with a term contract price of 139.91 yuan positions. Resulting in a loss of 18,600 yuan the plaintiff. Now please tell the defendant to compensate the loss of the original 18,600 yuan, and bear the legal costs.

The defendant argued that: the day large price fluctuations, insufficient margin plaintiff 337 contracts, while temporary warehouse explosion. In the case of the plaintiff did not immediately margin calls, which forced liquidation.

[Headnotes] The court held that: the plaintiff the defendant at futures trading accounts, the two sides signed the "agreement" and "statement." Treasury futures prices due to adverse fluctuations, the defendant found the plaintiff's initial margin has fallen below its maintenance level. The plaintiff must notify the defendant that day paid margin calls, the plaintiff after receiving the notice, failed to margin paid on the same day. So the defendant is entitled to the plaintiff 100 open positions in bond futures contracts in order to market the next morning forced open. The plaintiff accused its government bond futures contract was unauthorized positions, asked the defendant for compensation claims 18,600 yuan, the improper reason, it will not be supported. Then the judgment dismissed the plaintiff Chen.

Up: war JDB Wong Lo Kat and the full resolution
Next: Stock Trading Contract Dispute Case
© 2005 - 2021 GUANG DONG SHANGDA (FU TIAN) LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved