Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Commodity Future Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni struck investors’ letters and explained they failed reconsideration’s strict standard.
Non-party EminiFX investors who submitted letters seeking reconsideration of the Receiver’s approved fees and expenses, and the Receiver whose fee request had been approved.
What happened
In Commodity Future Trading Commission v. Alexandre, non-party EminiFX investors sent letters asking the court to reconsider its earlier approval of the Receiver’s request for $990,777.86 in fees and $5,660.42 in expenses.
The court said the letters were not properly filed requests to intervene. It also explained that reconsideration requires a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness. The court said the fee request was reasonable based on its experience with the work performed, even though the amount might appear high.
The court ordered the Clerk to strike the investors’ letters from the docket. Judge Valerie Caproni said investors who want to participate must refile their letters as motions to intervene stating their grounds, and encouraged them to use the communication methods established for EminiFX investors to contact the Receiver.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 17, 2022
Background
On August 5, 2022, the Court approved the Receiver’s motion 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 opinion states that the letters were submitted without lawyers and were attached as an exhibit to the order.
Court’s analysis
The Court stated that the investors’ requests were not properly presented because the investors had not moved to intervene, meaning formally asked to become parties or participants in the case. The Court directed that any investor who wished to intervene must refile the letter as a motion to intervene and state the grounds for the request.
The Court also addressed the standard for reconsideration. It explained that relief is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The Court said that, even if the investors’ requests had been properly presented, they failed to meet this strict standard. Although the Receiver’s fee request might appear high, the Court had found it reasonable based on its experience with the work performed during the period covered by the fee application.
Order
The Court ordered the Clerk of Court to strike the investors’ letters from the docket. It did not state that it was denying a separately filed motion for reconsideration. The Court encouraged the investors to raise concerns about the Receiver’s actions through the direct communication methods established for EminiFX investors. Judge Valerie Caproni signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.