Aurifex Commodities Research Company_ et al by backgroundnow

VIEWS: 237 PAGES: 27

More Info
									Case 1:06-cv-00166-RHB

Document 215

Filed 02/01/2008

Page 1 of 27

2009-12-15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, File No. 1:06-CV-166 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL AURIFEX COMMODITIES RESEARCH COMPANY, et al., Defendants. / OPINION Plaintiff Commodity Futures Training Commission (“CFTC”) filed a complaint against Defendants Aurifex Commodities Research Company, Aurifex Research, L.L.C., Ty Klotz and Monette Klotz (“M. Klotz”) on March 7, 2006, alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-27f, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-.70. This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff CFTC’s motion for summary judgment against Defendants Ty Klotz and M. Klotz. (Dkt. No. 188, Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. ) In its motion CFTC requests a declaratory judgment that Defendants Ty Klotz and M. Klotz have violated various sections of the CEA and its regulations;1 an injunction

Specifically CFTC seeks a declaration that that Defendants Ty Klotz and M. Klotz violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(i) and (iii), 6c(b), 6m(1), 6n(4), and 6o(1) and Commission

1

SOURCED: WWW.BACKGROUNDNOW.COM Page 1 of 27 www.BackgroundNow.com provides background checks to businesses; publishes fraud, corruption, and other criminal and civil case news; and distr butes case complaints, indictments, plea agreements and other court documents to analysts, bloggers, journalists, reporters and interested readers. Always keep in mind that indictments, complaints or informations are not evidence of guilt. These are descriptions of accusations made against defendants. Those accused are presumed innocent until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven or until guilt is admitted or plead.

Case 1:06-cv-00166-RHB

Document 215

Filed 02/01/2008

Page 2 of 27

2009-12-15

prohibiting Ty Klotz and M. Klotz from engaging in conduct in violation of those sections of the CEA and the CFTC’s regulations; an injunction prohibiting Ty Klotz and M. Klotz from engaging in any activity related to trading in any commodity; an order directing Ty Klotz and M. Klotz to pay restitution, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,826,708.16, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; an order directing Ty Klotz to pay a civil monetary penalty of $120,000.00 for each of the eight counts of the Complaint where he is charged with violations of the CEA or Regulations, for a total of $960,000.00; and an order directing M. Klotz to pay a civil monetary penalty of $120,000 for each of the seven counts of the Complaint where she is charged with violations of the CEA or Regulations, for a total of $840,000.00. For the reasons that follow Plaintiff CFTC’s motion for summary judgment will be granted, except as to the amount of the monetary penalty against M. Klotz. I. Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In evaluating a motion for summary judgment the Court must look beyond the pleadings and assess the proof to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). If the moving party also bears the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party’s initial Regulations found at 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(c), 4.21, 4.22. and 33.10 as alleged in Counts 1, 38, and that Ty Klotz violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(ii) as alleged in Count 2.
SOURCED: WWW.BACKGROUNDNOW.COM Page 2 of 27 www.BackgroundNow.com provides background checks to businesses; publishes fraud, corruption, and other criminal and civil case news; and distr butes case complaints, indictments, plea agreements and other court documents to analysts, bloggers, journalists, reporters and interested readers. Always keep in mind that indictments, complaints or informations are not evidence of guilt. These are descriptions of accusations made against defendants. Those accused are presumed innocent until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven or until guilt is admitted or plead.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00166-RHB

Document 215

Filed 02/01/2008

Page 3 of 27

2009-12-15

summary judgment burden is to “show that the record contains evidence satisfying the burden of persuasion and that the evidence is so powerful that no reasonable jury would be free to disbelieve it.” Cockrel v. Shelby Count
								
To top