Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Saffron

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 29, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-01697·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01697-JAD-DJA

4 Plaintiff

5 v. Final Judgment of Disgorgement, Civil Penalty, Restitution, and Permanent 6 David Gilbert Saffron a/k/a David Gilbert and Injunction Circle Society, Corp., 7 Defendants 8

9 Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a Complaint for Injunctive 10 Relief, Restitution, Disgorgement, and Civil Monetary Penalties against David Gilbert Saffron 11 a/k/a David Gilbert and his business entity, Circle Society, Corp., for violations of the 12 Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–27f (2012), and Regulations promulgated thereunder, 13 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2019). The Commission has moved under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 14 55(b) for default judgment against Saffron and Circle Society; for grants of permanent injunctive 15 relief, restitution, disgorgement, and a civil monetary penalty; and for the related relief of 16 additional sanctions, a show-cause order, and to strike one of the defendants’ filings.1 After a 17 hearing on the merits and having considered the pleadings, declarations, exhibits, and 18 memoranda filed by the parties, I granted the motion for default judgment, denied the motion to 19 strike, and denied as moot the motions for sanctions and for a show-cause order.2 Because I 20 articulated my findings and conclusions on the record, the transcript of the hearing serves as the 21 record of my ruling. But I enter this order to memorialize the outcome of the hearing. 22

23 1 ECF Nos. 61, 95, 62, 98. 2 ECF No. 107 (minutes of proceedings). 1 Whether to grant a motion for default judgment lies within the trial court’s discretion,3 2 which is guided by the seven factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool.4 As I 3 found and concluded during the hearing, the Commission has demonstrated that every Eitel 4 factor weighs in favor of entering default judgment against Saffron and Circle Society. The 5 rehashed excuses that the defendants offered during the hearing for their continued failure to

6 comply with this court’s orders, and their ongoing failure to offer any colorable defense to the 7 Commission’s claims, animate the Commission’s default-judgment arguments and underlie my 8 conclusion that default judgment is warranted here. 9 The Commission has demonstrated that a permanent injunction under 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) 10 should be entered against both defendants. The Commission’s well-pled allegations and 11 evidence shows that Saffron and Circle Society violated: 12 a. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A)-(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 32.4; 13 b. 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1), (b), and (c); and 14 c. 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1).

15 The same allegations and evidence also demonstrate that Saffron violated 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2). The 16 Commission has further established that there is a reasonable likelihood that Saffron and Circle 17 Society will continue to violate the Act and Regulations unless they are permanently restrained 18 and enjoined by this court. I am satisfied that the intentional and egregious nature of Saffron’s 19 and Circle Society’s fraudulent conduct warrants permanent injunctive relief, including 20 registration and trading bans. 21 22

23 3 Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). 4 Id. at 1471–72. 1 Finally, the Commission has demonstrated that awards of restitution in the amount of 2 $14,841,280, disgorgement in the amount of $15,815,967, and a civil monetary penalty of 3 $1,484,128 are warranted under these circumstances. I find that the restitution award will make 4 the victims of Saffron’s and Circle Society’s fraudulent scheme whole. The disgorgement award 5 will allow the government to claw back any profits and gains that the defendants wrongfully

6 obtained by their scheme. And the civil penalty is reasonable and appropriate given the gravity 7 of the defendants’ violations. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commission’s motion for default judgment 9 [ECF No. 97] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in 10 favor of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and against David Gilbert Saffron a/k/a 11 David Gilbert and Circle Society, Corp., jointly and severally, in the total amount of 12 $32,141,375. Post-judgment interest on the entire amount of the judgment will run at the rate of 13 0.07%, compounded annually, from March 29, 2021, until satisfied.5 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

15 A. Restitution 16 1. National Futures Association (NFA) is appointed to monitor and distribute 17 payments made by the defendants against the $14,841,280 restitution obligation that they owe to 18 their participants. NFA must collect restitution payments from the defendants and make 19

5 Post-judgment interest is mandatory “on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a 20 district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a); see Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activities, 518 F.3d 1013, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2008). “[F]ederal law determines 21 the rate of post-judgment interest[,]” and it “should be awarded on the entire amount of the judgment . . . .” Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 725 F.3d 1050, 1056 22 (9th Cir. 2003). Applicable federal law provides that interest must “be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity 23 Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § (a) (period omitted). 1 distributions as set forth below. Because the NFA is acting as an officer of this court in 2 performing these services, it will not be liable for any action or inaction arising from its 3 appointment as monitor, other than for actions involving fraud. 4 2. The NFA must oversee the defendants’ restitution obligation and has the 5 discretion to determine the manner of distribution of the funds paid in a manner that is equitable

6 to the defendants’ participants as identified by the Commission. The NFA may defer distribution 7 until such time as it deems appropriate. If the amount of restitution payments are so de minimis 8 that the NFA determines that the administrative cost of making a distribution to eligible 9 participants is impractical, the NFA may, in its discretion, treat the restitution payments as civil 10 monetary penalty payments. 11 3. At the beginning of each calendar year, the NFA must provide the Commission 12 with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to the defendants’ participants during the 13 previous year. The NFA must transmit this report, along with a cover letter identifying the name 14 and docket number of this case, to:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Saffron, (D. Nev. 2021).

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Saffron (Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Saffron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related