CFTC v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Mondelēz Global LLC (price manipulation, 2015)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 4, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (cftc-kraft-foods-group-price-manipulation-2015) by email

In April 2015 the CFTC filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois against Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Mondelēz Global LLC alleging manipulation and attempted manipulation of cash wheat and December 2011 wheat futures prices through a planned $90 million futures purchase they never meant to deliver on, plus position limit and noncompetitive trading violations. On May 13, 2022 a consent order resolved the action, with an injunction and a $16 million penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$16m

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$16m

Alleged gain

$5.4m

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on April 2, 2015 as release 7150-15. The respondents named are Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Mondelēz Global LLC (0 individuals, 2 entities). The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

This library tags the matter as price manipulation, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The conduct is recorded against futures, with CBOT identified in the release.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

Outcome. The CFTC's May 13, 2022 release says Judge John Robert Blakey entered a consent order that day resolving the action against both defendants. The order includes an injunction and a $16 million penalty. The release is short: it does not describe findings, say whether the defendants admitted or denied the allegations, or give any disgorgement figure, and we did not open the consent order itself. A consent order is a settlement, so the allegations above remain the CFTC's and were not tried.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-04-01 CFTC release published
2. 2022-05-13 Consent order resolves CFTC action: injunction and $16 million penalty

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• CFTC release
• CFTC release 8528-22 (consent order)

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.