Opinion
Case No. 03-767-FMC(JWJX)
February 6, 2003
BERNARD J. BARRETT, LOUIS V. TRAEGER, MYRNA D. MORGANSTERN, COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Los Angeles
RICHARD GLASER (Pro Hac Vice), COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff
Temporary and Statutory Restraining Order Enjoining Defendant Paris DeLesseppes From Continuing to Violate the Commodity Exchange Act 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and Commission Regulations 17 C.F.R. § 1 et. seq. and Ordering Defendants Paris DeLesseppes, John Lassen and EuroBancorp to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Be Issued
This matter came on for hearing on Feb. 6, 2003 on the ex parte Application of Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "Commission" or "Plaintiff") for: (1) a Temporary and Statutory Restraining Order against Defendant Paris DeLesseppes; and (2) an Order to Show
Cause re: Preliminary Injunction against Defendants Paris DeLesseppes, John Lassen and EuroBancorp (the "Application"). The Court, having considered the Commission's Complaint, Application, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Exhibits, other materials, all other evidence presented by the Plaintiff filed herein, and having heard the arguments of counsel, finds that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (the "Act") 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (1994).
2. Venue lies properly within this District pursuant to Sections 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (1994). There is good cause to believe that Defendant Paris DeLesseppes has engaged, is engaging and is about to engage in acts and practices constituting violations of the Act, 7 U.S.C §§ 1 et seq.
3. There is good cause to believe that immediate and irreparable damage to the Court's ability to grant effective final relief will occur unless Defendant Pars DeLesseppes is immediately restrained and enjoined by Order of this Court.
4. Weighing the equities and considering the Commission's likelihood of success in its claims for relief, the issuance of a temporary and statutory restraining order is in the public interest.
RELIEF GRANTED I. TEMPORARY AND STATUTORY RESTRAINING ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:5. Defendants, all persons insofar as they are acting in the capacity of agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, or attorneys of Defendants, and all persons insofar as they are acting in active concert or participation with Defendants who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, shall be prohibited and restrained from
A. directly or indirectly in or in connection with any order to make, or the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future delivery, made, or to be made, for or on behalf of any other persons, where such contract for future delivery was or could be used for (A) hedging any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity or the products or byproducts thereof, or (B) determining the price basis of any transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity, or (C) delivering any such commodity sold, shipped, or received in interstate commerce for the fulfillment thereof,
1. cheating or defrauding or attempting to cheat or defraud other persons; and
2. willfully deceiving or attempting to deceive other persons;
all in violation of Section 4b(a)(i) and (iii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(i) and (iii), and Commission Regulations ("Regulations") Section 1.1, 17 C.F.R. § 1.1 (2002);
b. soliciting or accepting funds from prospective and current investors; trading commodity futures contracts or options on futures contracts for themselves or for clients; and marketing and/or selling any seminars or materials relating to trading of commodity futures or options on commodity futures;
c. directly or indirectly offering to enter into, entering into, executing, confirming the execution of, or conducting an office or business in the United States for the purpose of soliciting, accepting any order for, or otherwise dealing in transactions in, or in connection with, a contract for the purchase of sale of a commodity for future delivery;
II. BOND NOT REQUIRED OF PLAINTIFF
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
6. Plaintiff Commission is an agency of the United States of America and, accordingly, the Commission need post no bond.
III.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
7. Defendants Paris DeLesseppes, John Lassen and EuroBancorp shall show cause, if there be any at 3.00 o'clock p.m. on Feb 24, 2003 before the Honorable Florence-Marie Cooner Courtroom 750, United States Courthouse for the Central District of California at 255 E. Temple RT. Los Angeles, California 90012, why an Order for Preliminary Injunction should not be granted to prohibit further violations of the Act and why the other relief requested should not be granted pending trial on the merits of this action
8. Papers in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction shall be filed on or before Feb 14, 2003 and copies of such opposition shall be faxed and hand delivered to Plaintiff on or before 4.00 o'clock p.m. on Feb 14, 2003. Reply papers shall be filed on or before 2003 and copies shall be faxed and hand delivered to Defendants.
IV. SERVICE OF ORDER
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
9. This Order shall be served on defendant by personal service consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(e) and, additionally, that Bruce Gale and James Andreozzi are specially appointed by the Court to effect service on or before 5.00 o'clock p.m. on 2/7, 2003.