TIMELINE-Barclays seeks stay of U.S. power market manipulation case

Jan 5 - Barclays Plc (LSE: BARC.L - news) last week asked the U.S (Other OTC: UBGXF - news) . district court in California to stay proceedings in an alleged power market manipulation case against the bank and four of its former energy traders pending resolution of an appeal.

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2012 alleged Barclays and its traders manipulated the power market in California from 2006 to 2008, and proposed the bank pay $435 million in civil penalties and disgorge $34.9 million in ill-gotten gains.

Barclays said in its Dec. 29, 2015 stay motion that it filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting review of the district court's Oct (HKSE: 3366-OL.HK - news) . 2, 2015 scheduling order.

In its appeal, Barclays said it would seek to reverse the lower court's decision to separate its review of FERC's proposed civil penalty from its determination of proposed disgorgement, among other things.

Following is a timeline of FERC's Barclays case and the events leading up to it: December 2015: Barclays files motion to stay district court proceedings pending appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal seeks to reverse part of the district court's October 2015 order on reviewing FERC's proposed civil penalties and disgorgement, among other things.

October 2015: Court orders FERC to file a record of how it assessed civil penalties and to file a motion for an order affirming the civil penalties assessed by FERC.

May 2015: Court dismisses Barclays' motion to dismiss. February 2015: Court hears oral argument on Barclays' motion to dismiss.

February 2014: FERC files motion opposed to Barclays' motion to dismiss.

December 2013: Barclays files motion to dismiss the FERC case. Among other contentions, Barclays argued FERC had no standing to pursue the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals in March 2013 dismissed FERC's case against natural gas trader Brian Hunter, finding that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over futures markets. October 2013: FERC files case against Barclays and its traders in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, requesting a jury trial.

July 2013: At Barclays' request, FERC issues an order assessing the civil penalty against the bank and its traders, and institutes an action in federal district court to affirm the penalty. Barclays had the option to choose a hearing before a FERC administrative law judge or seek review by a U.S. district court if the FERC commissioners found a violation.

October 2012: FERC issues order to Barclays to show cause why it should not be found to have violated the Federal Power Act and pay a civil penalty of $435 million and disgorge $34.9 million plus interest. FERC also issues an order to four Barclays (Swiss: BARC.SW - news) traders to show cause why they should not be assessed penalties totaling $18 million.

July 2010: CFTC Director of Enforcement sent letter to FERC's Director of Enforcement that FERC was best situated to handle the Barclays case. November 2006: FERC alleges Barclays and four of its traders manipulated the electric market in and around California from November 2006 to December 2008.

Specifically, FERC says Barclays engaged in loss-generating trading of next-day physical power on the IntercontinentalExchange at four Western hubs, Mid-Columbia, Palo Verde, South Path 15 and North Path 15, to benefit Barclays financial swap positions in those markets.

October 2005: FERC and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) agree to work together on market manipulation cases. July 2005: In response to the Western energy crisis and the Northeastern blackout, Congress passes Energy Policy Act of 2005, ratcheting up penalties FERC can impose for market manipulation and reliability violations to $1 million per day per violation from the prior cap of $10,000 a day.

June 2004: FERC authorizes Barclays to sell power at market-based prices.

August 2003: Blackout leaves 55 million people in the dark in eight U.S. Northeastern and Midwestern states and Ontario in Canada. 2001-2003: Numerous energy marketers, such as the former Enron, Mirant, El Paso and Dynegy (NYSE: DYN - news) , exit U.S. power and gas markets due to credit concerns and allegations of market manipulation.

December 2001: Enron enters bankruptcy amid an accounting scandal and accusations of power and gas market manipulation. 2000-2001: A power crisis hits California and other Western U.S. states, costing customers up to $45 billion as well as lost economic activity due partly to power and gas market manipulation. 1995-2000: States begin deregulating power markets to give customers a choice of supplier. The program was expected to reduce electricity costs. (Reporting by Scott DiSavino; Editing by Andrew Hay)