Last checked at 
March 14 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitlast week denied an appeal by Barclays Plc in partbecause the district court's order was not a final decision.
The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2012alleged Barclays and its traders manipulated the power market inCalifornia from 2006 to 2008, and proposed the bank pay $435million in civil penalties and disgorge $34.9 million inill-gotten gains.
Barclays filed the appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Decemberseeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of California related to a scheduling order.
In its appeal, Barclays said it would seek to reverse thelower court's decision to separate its review of FERC's proposedcivil penalty from its determination of proposed disgorgement,among other things.
Following is a timeline of FERC's Barclays case and theevents leading up to it:March 2016: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deniesBarclays appeal of a decision by the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of California related to a scheduling order.
March 2016: U.S. District Court in the Eastern District ofCalifornia denied Barclays motion to stay the district courtproceedings pending its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit.
February 2016: U.S. District Court in the Southern District ofNew York said Barclays must face a proposed class-action lawsuitin which a California water utility accused the bank ofillegally manipulating power prices. That alleged manipulationcaused power purchasers to pay at least $139.3 million more forelectricity, the water utility, Merced Irrigation District,said.
The alleged manipulation is the same activity that FERCfined the bank over.
December 2015: Barclays files motion to stay district courtproceedings pending appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit. The appeal seeks to reverse part of the districtcourt's October 2015 order on reviewing FERC's proposed civilpenalties and disgorgement, among other things.
October 2015: Court orders FERC to file a record of how itassessed civil penalties and to file a motion for an orderaffirming the civil penalties assessed by FERC.
June 2015: Merced Irrigation District, a California waterutility, issued a complaint proposing a class action lawsuitagainst Barclays for the same alleged manipulation that FERC isseeking its fine. The water utility said the bank's activitycaused power purchasers to pay at least $139.3 million more forelectricity.
May 2015: Court dismisses Barclays' motion to dismiss.February 2015: Court hears oral argument on Barclays' motion todismiss.
February 2014: FERC files motion opposed to Barclays' motion todismiss.
December 2013: Barclays files motion to dismiss the FERC case. Among other contentions, Barclays argued FERC had no standing topursue the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals in March 2013dismissed FERC's case against natural gas trader Brian Hunter,finding that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over futuresmarkets.October 2013: FERC files case against Barclays and itstraders in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofCalifornia, requesting a jury trial.
July 2013: At Barclays' request, FERC issues an order assessingthe civil penalty against the bank and its traders, andinstitutes an action in federal district court to affirm thepenalty. Barclays had the option to choose a hearing before aFERC administrative law judge or seek review by a U.S. districtcourt if the FERC commissioners found a violation.
October 2012: FERC issues order to Barclays to show cause why itshould not be found to have violated the Federal Power Act andpay a civil penalty of $435 million and disgorge $34.9 millionplus interest. FERC also issues an order to four Barclaystraders to show cause why they should not be assessed penaltiestotaling $18 million.
July 2010: CFTC Director of Enforcement sent letter to FERC'sDirector of Enforcement that FERC was best situated to handlethe Barclays case.November 2006: FERC alleges Barclays and four of its tradersmanipulated the electric market in and around California fromNovember 2006 to December 2008.
Specifically, FERC says Barclays engaged in loss-generatingtrading of next-day physical power on theIntercontinentalExchange at four Western hubs, Mid-Columbia,Palo Verde, South Path 15 and North Path 15, to benefit Barclaysfinancial swap positions in those markets.
October 2005: FERC and the U.S. Commodity Futures TradingCommission (CFTC) agree to work together on market manipulationcases.July 2005: In response to the Western energy crisis and theNortheastern blackout, Congress passes Energy Policy Act of2005, ratcheting up penalties FERC can impose for marketmanipulation and reliability violations to $1 million per dayper violation from the prior cap of $10,000 a day.
June 2004: FERC authorizes Barclays to sell power atmarket-based prices.
August 2003: Blackout leaves 55 million people in the dark ineight U.S. Northeastern and Midwestern states and Ontario inCanada.2001-2003: Numerous energy marketers, such as the former Enron,Mirant, El Paso and Dynegy, exit U.S. power and gas markets dueto credit concerns and allegations of market manipulation.
December 2001: Enron enters bankruptcy amid an accountingscandal 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 losteconomic activity due partly to power and gas marketmanipulation.1995-2000: States begin deregulating power markets to givecustomers a choice of supplier. The program was expected toreduce electricity costs. (Reporting by Scott DiSavino)
