EMIR vs. Dodd-Frank: Just choose one?

US and EU regulators have announced a ‘path forward‘ on approaching cross-border derivatives regulation that will allow firms operating internationally to comply with only one set of OTC trading requirements, rather than implementing both Dodd-Frank and EMIR.

For a long time it seemed that there would be no agreement on the ‘equivalency’ between Dodd-Frank and EMIR OTC derivatives rules, meaning that firms that operate transatlantically would need to implement two sets of conflicting regulations at the same time. While both sets of policy are ‘essentially identical’, there are a myriad of legal and technical challenges to overcome in order to comply with both. Trade reporting, risk mitigation, collateral allocation and mandatory clearing requirements all contain different definitions, rules and legal and technical requirements that would create huge administrative costs if they were to be implemented concurrently.

Both sides aim to conclude these discussions as soon as possible, at which stage the substance of relevant relief awarded by the CFTC will be reflected in its guidance relating to substituted compliance, as approved by its principals, while the EU equivalence decisions will have been in place and, where necessary, amended to reflect this partnership. For the future, they have agreed to continue to work collaboratively and to consider any unforeseen implementation effects that might arise in the application of their respective rules.


RegRisk Legal Solutions Limited has taken all reasonable care and skill in the compilation of this guidance. However, it shall not be under any liability for loss or damage (including consequential loss) whatsoever or howsoever arising as a result of errors or omissions or the use of this publication by the users, whomever they may be. RegRisk Legal recognises that some of the terms appearing in this report are proprietary. All such trademarks are acknowledged and every effort has been made to indicate them by the normal UK publishing practice of capitalisation. The presence of a term in whatever form does not affect its legal status as a trademark.