Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied Alexandre’s application and denied permission for a fee-free immediate appeal.
Eddy Alexandre’s challenge to the court-appointed receiver’s first-quarter 2025 financial report and payment applications was denied. The order also denied Alexandre permission to proceed without paying fees on an immediate appeal.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Eddy Alexandre, representing himself, asked the court to reject the court-appointed receiver’s first-quarter 2025 financial report and requests for payment. He argued that the report used nonstandard accounting figures, lacked transparency, and raised due-process concerns.
Alexandre also challenged the receiver’s expenses, sealed filings, handling of EminiFX assets, and proposed future litigation. He requested a timeline for resolving remaining issues, greater financial transparency, and a jury trial.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application, explaining that the court had already reviewed the receiver’s report and approved the fee application. The judge also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on an immediate appeal, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- May 22, 2025
Background
Eddy Alexandre, acting without a lawyer, submitted an application challenging the court-appointed receiver’s first-quarter 2025 financial report, also called the Twelfth Status Report, and the receiver’s related request for payment. Alexandre asked the court to reject the report and payment applications.
Alexandre argued that the report used financial figures that were not prepared under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that the receiver had described the figures as illustrative and subject to revision. He also challenged the receiver’s expenses, including approximately $1.3 million in legal bills and expenses compared with approximately $650,000 in earned interest, as stated in his filing. He raised additional objections concerning the receiver’s handling of EminiFX assets, sealed invoices and reports, the pace of investor distributions, and the receiver’s possible future litigation.
Alexandre’s Requests
Alexandre asserted that the receiver’s actions and reporting practices violated due-process principles and lacked adequate transparency. He requested rejection of the financial report and payment applications, a timeline for resolving outstanding issues, a jury trial, and court-ordered transparency concerning financial records and future receiver actions.
The opinion states that Alexandre had pleaded guilty in a criminal case to defrauding investors. The court relied on that fact in explaining why it would not treat Alexandre as the guardian of the investors’ best interests when evaluating the receiver’s work.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the application. The court stated that it had already reviewed the receiver’s first-quarter 2025 status report and approved the receiver’s fee application, citing docket entry 490. The court also stated that Alexandre’s motion lacked legal authority and that it need not consider his preferences when assessing the receiver’s work.
The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an immediate appeal of the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission for Alexandre to proceed without paying fees on an immediate appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Alexandre a copy of the order and note the mailing on the docket.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.