Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni enjoined arbitration but declined to hold the Beils in contempt.
Christopher Beil and Maureen Beil were barred from proceeding with their arbitration against Eddy Alexandre and were directed to raise their claim through the receiver’s claims process. The order also preserved the stay affecting assets in the receiver’s custody.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Christopher and Maureen Beil sought to arbitrate a contract claim against Eddy Alexandre for liquidated damages.
The court had previously barred legal actions affecting assets held by the receiver unless the court gave permission. The Beils filed their arbitration demand without first seeking permission, and the receiver opposed allowing the arbitration to proceed.
The court enjoined the Beils’ arbitration and said they could present their claim through the receiver’s future claims process. Judge Valerie Caproni declined to hold the Beils in contempt but warned them to follow the court’s orders more carefully.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
On June 15, 2022, the court entered a consent order for a preliminary injunction. The injunction barred all persons, including nonparties who knew about it, from starting legal actions—including arbitration proceedings—that affected assets in the receiver’s custody unless they first obtained permission from the court.
On August 5, 2022, Christopher Beil and Maureen Beil filed an arbitration demand against Eddy Alexandre. They sought liquidated damages for an alleged contract breach. The opinion states that the Beils knew about the preliminary injunction. The court asked the receiver whether he objected to allowing the arbitration to proceed, and the receiver objected. The court also ordered the Beils to explain why they should not be held in contempt for violating the injunction.
Ruling
The court ordered that the Beils’ arbitration could not proceed. It explained that the Beils were seeking only to determine the amount of liquidated damages allegedly owed by Alexandre and could instead present their claim through the claims process that the receiver would establish. The court said maintaining the litigation stay preserved the existing situation while the receivership was being organized.
The court declined to hold the Beils in contempt. It nevertheless admonished them to follow the court’s orders more carefully in the future. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.