TIMELINE-US FERC suit against Barclays for alleged power market manipulation

July 21 - The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California set the trial date of May 6, 2019 for the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) lawsuit against Barclays Plc (LSE: BARC.L - news) for alleged power market manipulation.

The court said in an order this week that it expected the trial to last about four to six weeks.

The court also said there would be a settlement conference on Oct (Shenzhen: 000069.SZ - news) . 11-12, 2017.

FERC 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.

In a separate lawsuit, California utility Merced Irrigation District sued Barclays in federal court in New York because the manipulation alleged by FERC caused power purchasers like Merced to pay at least $139.3 million more for electricity.

Following is a timeline of FERC's Barclays case and the events leading up to it: MAY 6, 2019: Trial scheduled in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

OCTOBER 2017: Settlement conference scheduled for U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

JULY 2017: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California set the trial schedule.

May 2016: Barclays and Merced Irrigation District told a federal court in New York that they agreed to hire an outside mediator regarding Merced's lawsuit against the bank over alleged power market manipulation charges.

March 2016: U.S. District Court for in the Eastern District of California denied Barclays motion to stay the district court proceedings pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

February 2016: U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York said Barclays must face a proposed class-action lawsuit in which a California water utility accused the bank of illegally manipulating power prices. That alleged manipulation caused power purchasers to pay at least $139.3 million more for electricity, the water utility, Merced Irrigation District, said.

The alleged manipulation is the same activity that FERC fined the bank over.

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.

June 2015: Merced Irrigation District, a California water utility, issued a complaint proposing a class action lawsuit against Barclays for the same alleged manipulation that FERC is seeking its fine. The water utility said the bank's activity caused power purchasers to pay at least $139.3 million more for electricity.

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 (Frankfurt: A1J5JU - 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)