UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHERN DIVISION
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. DENNIS R. BOLZE and CENTURION ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, and ADVANCED TRADING SERVICES, INC., Relief Defendant.
No: 3:09-CV-88 (VARLAN/SHIRLEY)
ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND OTHER ANCILLARY RELIEF AGAINST CENTURION ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., AND ADVANCED TRADING SERVICES, INC. This matter comes before this Court on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 6] filed by Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). As of March 31, 2009, service has been properly effected upon Defendant Centurion Asset Management, Inc. (“CAM”) and Relief Defendant Advanced Trading Services, Inc. (“ATS” or “Relief Defendant”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2), by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to Nevada Corporate Headquarters Inc., the registered service agent for CAM and ATS. However,
Defendant Dennis R. Bolze (“Bolze”) has not yet been served with Plaintiff’s Complaint or Motions for Statutory Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction as he has been in the custody of the U.S. Marshal’s Service since his March 12, 2009, arrest in Pennsylvania on a criminal
SOURCED: WWW.BACKGROUNDNOW.COM Page 1 of 17 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. 3:09-cv-00088 Case Those accused are presumed innocent until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven or untilof 17 admitted or plead. Document 27 Filed 04/01/2009 Page 1 guilt is
matter and subsequent transportation to Tennessee.1 Accordingly, this Injunction is issued in regard to Defendant CAM and Relief Defendant ATS. Plaintiff CFTC filed a Complaint on March 3, 2009, against Defendant Bolze, Defendant CAM (collectively “Defendants”) and Relief Defendant ATS, seeking injunctive and other equitable relief for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (“the Act”), as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (2006), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, Title XIII (the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“CRA”)), §§ 13101-13204, 122 Stat. 1651 and the Commission Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1, et seq. (2008). On March 4, 2009, the Court entered an Ex Parte Statutory Restraining Order against the Defendants [Doc. 17] and set this matter for hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The hearing was held on March 31, 2009. [See Doc. 26.] This Court having considered the evidence presented in a hearing on CFTC’s Motion as well as the pleadings, memoranda, declarations and other exhibits filed and made in support of the CFTC’s Motion finds: THE COURT FINDS THAT: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and Defendant
CAM and Relief Defendant ATS pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) (2006), which authorizes the CFTC to seek injunctive relief against any person whenever it shall appear that such person has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation or order thereunder.
On March 30, 2009, Defendant Bolze made an initial appearance in a criminal matter in the Eastern District of Tennessee, docketed as Case Number 3:09-mj-2017 as of the preliminary injunction hearing date.
SOURCED: WWW.BACKGROUNDNOW.COM Page 2 of 17 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 2 readers. Always keep in mind that indictments, complaints or informations are not evidence of guilt. These are descriptions of accusations made against defendants. 3:09-cv-00088 Case Those accused are presumed innocent until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven or untilof 17 admitted or plead. Document 27 Filed 04/01/2009 Page 2 guilt is
Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C.
§ 13a-1(e) (2006), in that the Defendants transacted business in this District, and the acts and practices in violation of the Act have occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur within this District. 3. The pending bankruptcy matters do not affect the Commission’s ability to file an
action for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendants’ fraud. Such regulatory actions fall under an exception to the bankruptcy stay provisions. In re Commerce Oil Co., 847 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 1988) (“In particular, §§ 362(b)(4) and 362(b)(5) of