Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Skorupskas

605 F. Supp. 923, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21568
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedMarch 20, 1985
Docket83-CV-1885
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 605 F. Supp. 923 (Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Skorupskas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Skorupskas, 605 F. Supp. 923, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21568 (E.D. Mich. 1985).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PHILIP PRATT, District Judge.

On May 16, 1983, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CTFC”) and the State of Michigan 1 filed a complaint against defendants Barbara A. Skorupskas (“Skorupskas”), Baral Corporation, and Sidereal Corporation for alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act 2 and CFTC regulations, 3 including fraud. Skorupskas is the principal officer of each of the defendant corporations. The plaintiffs’ complaint sought injunctive and other equitable relief. Based upon plaintiffs’ complaint and affidavits, a temporary restraining order was entered by the Court. On June 7, 1983, by consent of the parties, the Court entered a preliminary injunctive order. 4 This Order restrained the defendants and all those persons “in active concert or participation with them who received actual notice of this Order” from “directly or indirectly,” among other acts, defrauding investors, receiving and dispersing funds, soliciting or accepting any new customer accounts, and dissipating or transferring the assets of defendants. The Order froze the assets of the defendants and authorized the appointment of a temporary receiver to take possession of the assets, to determine the benefits the defendants had gained by their wrongdoing, and to administer the receivership. 5

On September 22, 1983, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which alleged four additional counts of fraud. This amendment was prompted by the initial report of the Receiver which indicated that investor funds were commingled in the accounts of Barbal, Sidereal, and Skorupskas’ personal account and that substantial sums had been used by Skorupskas for her personal benefit.

On August 23, 1984, the State of Michigan filed a motion to hold Skorupskas in civil contempt for alleged violations of the preliminary injunctive order of June 7, 1983. The Court granted Skorupskas’ motion to separate the contempt proceedings from the case in chief. 6 Accordingly, the Court held a trial concerning the alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act as contained in the amended complaint. The trial required two weeks during September of 1984. The Court then scheduled *926 additional hearings regarding the allegations of civil contempt for November 26, 1984. On October 25, 1984, the State of Michigan filed a motion seeking an order to show cause why certain individuals, not parties to the action, should not be held in civil contempt for alleged violations of the June 7, 1983 Order. The Court granted this motion and issued the Order To Show Cause. The hearings on the various motions for civil contempt were held November 26-30, 1984, and January 9 and 10, 1985. 7 This Opinion includes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of the case in chief and on the contempt proceedings.

I.

The genesis of the scheme was the incorporation in 1981 by Skorupskas and certain relatives of Sidereal Corporation. Based on the alleged phenomenal success that Skorupskas had previously enjoyed in the commodities market, 15 persons opened investment accounts with Skorupskas. They were advised that commodities trading was risky, 8 but also reminded of her allegedly proven ability to make hugh profits. Additionally, Skorupskas advised these investors that profits were not taxable and need not be reported.

The scheme at this point required the investors to execute power of attorney giving Skorupskas complete discretion in trading investor funds in commodities. Skorupskas was to receive a 10% commission on all profits realized. Further, investors executed documents which purportedly would result in the opening of individual accounts with Rouse, Woodstock, Incorporated, a Chicago commodities brokerage firm. The investors were also required to direct Rouse, Woodstock that monthly statements of their account be sent to Skorupskas rather than to them directly. Investors were advised that the Rouse, Woodstock statements would be transmitted to them along with a monthly Sidereal statement of account. Skorupskas directed the investors to make their checks payable to Sidereal. Skorupskas did not indicate that these individuals’ funds would be used for any other purpose than commodity investments.

Thereafter, Skorupskas began trading these investor funds through Rouse, Woodstock. After a period of months substantial losses resulted; however, Skorupskas reported to the investors that huge profits were being made, but did not remit to the investors copies of the monthly statements of Rouse, Woodstock which showed the extent of the losses. That may have been the point when the “pyramid” scheme was birthed. 9 Skorupskas expanded her opera *927 tions, and through a series of small meetings at her home or the home of her parents (which eventually became the “office” of the Skorupskas interests) and progressively to large meetings of 100 or more persons that were held in rented halls, recruited over 500 new investors. These recruiting sessions were not the result of advertisements or professional promotion, but rather the result of word of mouth communications by her family, personal friends and investors who had been told that they had made large profits in a remarkably short period of time. 10

It is appropriate at this juncture to describe Skorupskas and her appeal to investors and the consequent blind faith and loyalty to her that not only led to the success of her fraudulent scheme but also caused a significant delay in the prosecution of this case and a disproportionate amount of time and expense necessary for the Temporary Receiver to perform his functions.

Barbara Skorupskas is an attractive, articulate, and intelligent young woman in her late twenties and is the daughter of Polish immigrants with substantial ties to the Polish community in the area. Many of the family’s friends were of like background and were, in the main, of the blue-color class—hard-working, industrious, and rightfully proud of their heritage. The Polish community is closely knit and active. Further, these hard-working people had daily contact in their places of employment with other members of the same class. Apparently the word spread rapidly that there was this amazing young lady who was “one of ours” and who had achieved tremendous success in the esoteric field of stock or commodity investing. Building on that base, Skorupskas was able to capitalize on the frustrations, misconceptions, and aspirations of this amorphous group and *928 convince many to invest their small savings in her scheme.

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

Related

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Allied Markets LLC
371 F. Supp. 3d 1035 (M.D. Florida, 2019)
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Arrington
998 F. Supp. 2d 847 (D. Nebraska, 2014)
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. PMC Strategy, LLC
903 F. Supp. 2d 368 (W.D. North Carolina, 2012)
United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Driver
877 F. Supp. 2d 968 (C.D. California, 2012)
US COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COM'N v. Rolando
589 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Connecticut, 2008)
United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rolando
589 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Connecticut, 2008)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Brockbank
505 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Utah, 2007)
Commodities Futures Trading Commission v. Heffernan
274 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (S.D. Georgia, 2003)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weinberg
287 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (C.D. California, 2003)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Heffernan
245 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (S.D. Georgia, 2003)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rosenberg
85 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. AVCO Financial Corp.
28 F. Supp. 2d 104 (S.D. New York, 1998)
Barbara Ann Skorupskas v. United States
966 F.2d 1454 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Clothier
788 F. Supp. 490 (D. Kansas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
605 F. Supp. 923, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commodity-futures-trading-commission-v-skorupskas-mied-1985.