Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Wall Street Underground, Inc.

451 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69048
CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedApril 7, 2006
DocketCIV.A. 03-2193-CM
StatusPublished

This text of 451 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Wall Street Underground, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas 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. Wall Street Underground, Inc., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69048 (D. Kan. 2006).

Opinion

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY AGAINST DEFENDANTS WEB FULFILLMENT CENTRE, INC. AND FRANK ASARO

MURGUIA, District Judge.

On April 22, 2008, plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) filed a complaint against Defendants Wall Street Underground, Inc. (“WSU”); Web Fulfillment Centre, Inc. (‘Web”); Nicholas A. Guarino, Jr.; Derek Abra-hams; and Frank Asaro (collectively “the Defendants”), seeking injunctive and other equitable relief, and a civil monetary penalty, for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (2002) relating to the offer and sale of commodity futures contracts to residents of the United States.

I. Consents and Agreements

To effect settlement of the matters alleged in the Complaint against Defendants Web and Asaro without a trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings:

1. Defendants Web and Asaro consent to the entry of this Consent Order of Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief and a Civil Monetary Penalty (“Order”).

2. Defendants Web and Asaro affirm that they have agreed to this Order volun *1253 tarily, and that no promise or threat has been made by the Commission or any member, officer, agent or representative thereof, or by any other person, to induce consent to this Order, other than as set forth specifically herein.

3. Defendants Web and Asaro consent to the jurisdiction of this Court to enter this Order.

4. Defendants Web and Asaro waive:

(a) all claims they may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2000), relating to, or arising from, this action;
(b) any claim of double jeopardy based upon the institution of this proceeding or the entry in this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any other relief; and
(c) all rights of appeal from this Order.

5. Defendants Web and Asaro neither admit nor deny any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in this Order. Defendants Web and Asaro do not consent to the use of this Order, or the findings of fact or conclusions of law, as the sole basis for any other proceeding brought by the Commission other than a proceeding brought to enforce the terms of the Order, any proceeding in bankruptcy, or as set forth in Part VII, paragraph 1 of this Order. No provision of this Order shall in any way limit or impair the ability of any person to seek any legal or equitable remedy against Defendants or any other person in any other proceeding.

6. Defendants Web and Asaro agree that neither they nor any of their agents or employees acting under their authority or control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the Complaint regarding their conduct, or the findings of fact or conclusions of law in this Order, or creating, or tending to create, the impression that the Complaint or this Order is without a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect Defendants Web’s and Asaro’s testimonial obligations or right to take legal, factual or equitable positions in other proceedings to which the Commission is not a party. Defendants Web and Asaro shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all of their agents and employees understand and comply with this order.

7.Defendants Web and Asaro consent to the continued jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of this Order and for any other purposes relevant to this case.

II. Findings of Fact

Solely on the basis of Defendants’ consents, the Court hereby makes the following findings of fact:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over Defendants Web and Asaro pursuant to Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l(a).

2. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-l(e), in that the acts and practices in violation of the Act have occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur within this district, among other places.

3. Since at least January 1999 through March 2001, (“relevant time period”), Defendant Web, through Asaro, knowingly and actively participated in the scheme of WSU, whereby several systems to be used for trading commodity futures and commodity options were fraudulently promoted and sold to the public. Specifically, Web, through Asaro, in the advertisements for the trading systems, knowingly overstated the profit potential of the trading systems, failed to adequately warn of the risks inherent in trading commodity futures and commodity options, and made false money-back guarantees.

*1254 4. Defendant Web, through Asaro, knew of the money-back guarantees promised to customers, yet failed to honor customer refund requests.

5. During the relevant time period, Asaro was the president of Web and was responsible for its daily operations and the activities of its employees. Asaro directed and controlled Web’s everyday business of marketing, distributing and servicing WSU’s trading systems.

6. During the relevant time period, Asaro controlled Web and did not act in good faith, or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts described above that were in furtherance of Web’s and WSU’s violations of the Act.

III. Conclusions of Law

1. The facts as stated above regarding Web and WSU represent violations of Sections 4o(l)(A) and (B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(A) and (B), and Commission Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a).

2. From at least January 1999 to March 2001, Defendant Web, through Asa-ro, overstated the profit potential of the WSU trading systems, failed to adequately warn of the risks inherent in trading commodity futures and commodity options, and made false money-back guarantees. Defendant Web thereby violated Sections 4o(l)(A) and (B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o(l)(A) and (B), and Commission Regulation 4.41(a), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a).

3.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commodity-futures-trading-commission-v-wall-street-underground-inc-ksd-2006.