Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In CFTC v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni struck investors’ letters seeking reconsideration of Receiver fees and explained why those requests would fail.
Non-party EminiFX investors who submitted letters about the Receiver’s approved fees and expenses were affected because their letters were struck from the docket; investors seeking to intervene must file motions explaining the grounds for intervention.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, the court had approved the Receiver’s request for $990,777.86 in fees and $5,660.42 in expenses. Non-party EminiFX investors then sent letters asking the court to reconsider that decision.
The court ordered the clerk to remove those letters from the docket. It said that investors who want to participate in the case must resubmit their requests as motions to intervene explaining why they should be allowed to do so. The court also directed investors toward communication methods created for them to raise concerns with the Receiver.
Judge Valerie Caproni explained that, even if the investors’ requests were properly presented, they would not satisfy the strict standard for reconsideration. That standard requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. The court stated that it had approved the Receiver’s fees and expenses because the request was reasonable in light of its experience with the work performed.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 21, 2022
Background
On August 5, 2022, the court approved the Receiver’s request for $990,777.86 in fees and $5,660.42 in expenses. The court later received numerous letters from non-party EminiFX investors asking it to reconsider that decision. The letters were submitted without lawyers and were attached as an exhibit to this order.
Court’s action
The court ordered the clerk to strike the investors’ letters from the docket. The court stated that investors wishing to intervene—that is, formally join the case—must refile their letters as a motion to intervene and state the grounds for seeking intervention. The court also encouraged investors to raise concerns about the Receiver through the direct communication procedures created for EminiFX investors.
Reconsideration standard and explanation
The court stated that, even if the investors’ requests were properly presented, they would fail the strict standard governing motions for reconsideration. The court identified the relevant grounds as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Although the approved fee request might appear high, the court said it had granted the Receiver’s motion because it found the request reasonable based on the court’s experience with the work performed during the period covered by the fee application.
Disposition
The order strikes the investors’ letters from the docket and explains that properly filed reconsideration requests would not meet the applicable standard. The opinion does not separately state that a motion for reconsideration was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.