LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

CFTC v DAVID A LUGER Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: CVDAL92376, CourtName: MISC 2, Plaintiff: CFTC, State: FL Florida, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>CVDAL92376, Luger, Act, Commission, Monitor, Restitution, Financial Statement, Violation, Tax, Pursuant, Requiring, Pay Restitution, Paragraphs, Financial Group, Sworn Financial Statement, Tax Records, Payment Plan, Assets, Trading, Provision, Regulations, Practices, Matter, Lexus Financial Group, Income, Commodity, Receiving, Amount, Enjoin, Virtue, Restraining, Partnership, Pdk, Representatives, Statutory Restraining Order, Destroying, Books, Relief, Purposes, Personal Service, Account, Deposit , ContentID: 120252666

Case Documents
1   ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127724
8 pages
PDF
2 1996-11 COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127723
10 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 2 documents , 18 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . ORDER

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
ASSETS
ACT
BUSINESS
RESTRAINING
PARTNERSHIP
PDK
REPRESENTATIVES
STATUTORY RESTRAINING ORDER
DESTROYING
BOOKS
RELIEF
PURPOSES
PERSONAL SERVICE
ACCOUNT
DEPOSIT
ALTERING
COMMISSION
COMPLAINT
PURSUANT
GRANTING
DISCOVERING
MEMORANDUM
JURISDICTION
MATTER
TRANSFERRING
DISPOSING
PRODUCTIONS
PARAGRAPH
                                           TJ-PIITED STATES  DISTRICT  COURT
                                   FOR  TBE  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF FL fj$?g!p$()435

                           `Y  FUTURES  TRADING  COMMISSION,                      )
                                                                                  )  ca4gJfjy      
                                                   PIaintiff,                     1

           V.

           DAVID  A.  UGER,

                                                   Defendant.



                           2x Patie  Statutory  Restraining  Order  Freezing  Assets  of  Defendant,
                      Pr  libiting  Defendant  From  Destroying  or  Altering  any  Books,  Records
                   Othi  Documents,  Barring  the  Defendant  from  Denying  Access  to.those.Books,
                             Records  and  Rocuments  to  any  Representative  of  Plaintiff,  and
                                        Granting  Leave  to  Take  Expedited  Discovery

                   Plair  ff,  the  Commodity  Futures  Trading  Commission  ("Commission"),  has

          Complaint  f  permanent  injunction  and  other  relief,  and  moved  exparte,  pursuant 

          ofthe  comr  bdity Exchange  Act,  as amended  (the  "Act"),  7 U.S.C.  5 13a-1  (1994), 

          Statutory  R<  raining  Order  fkeezing  the assets of  the Defendant,  prohibiting 

          destroying  a  I  business records,  books  or  documents  and granting  leave  to  take 

          discovely.  :  le Court  has considered  the pleadings,  declarations,  exhibits,  and 

          filed  in  sup1  rt of  the Commission's  motion.,  As it  appears to the  Court  that

          jurisdiction     m  the  subject matter  of  this  case, that Section  6c ,of the  Act, 
                                                 -.
                                         `.
          authorizes  e.  unrte  relief,  +$t$ere  is good  cause to believe  that Defendant  has
                                                J :
          engaging  in  : is about to  engage  in  violations  of  the Act,  and  that this  is a

          granting  an  I  parre  Statutory  Restraining  Order  to  prcseme  the  status  ql

          Commissior       D fulfill  its &atutory  duties,  the  Court  orders  as follows:       
                                                                                                   



SNIPPETS:
  • 2x Patie Statutory Restraining Order Freezing Assets of Defendant,
  • Complaint f permanent injunction and other relief, and moved exparte, pursuant to Section 6c
  • Statutory R< raining Order fkeezing the assets of the Defendant,
  • destroying a I business records, books or documents and granting leave to take expedited
  • le Court has considered the pleadings, declarations, exhibits, and memorandum
  • filed in sup1 rt of the Commission's motion., As it appears to the Court that the Court has
  • jurisdiction m the subject matter of this case, that Section 6c,of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 0 13a-1,
  • notice 0f.t.h 3rder by personal service or otherwise, except as othetise ordered by this
  • transferring, selling, alienating, liquidating, encumbering, pledging, leasing,
  • in which Defendant has an interest, including but not limited to PDK Productions
  • Paragraph V of this Order, or as otherwise ordered by the Court;
  • opening or causing to be open4 any safe deposit boxes titled in the name of,
  • indirectly destroying, mutilating, erasing, altering, concealing or disposing of, in any
  • any documents that relate to the business practices or business or personal
  • attorneys, p;itb7ers, servants, representatives, employees, any personacting or purporting to
  • act for or on ' `s behalf, and corporate and partnership entities in which Defendant has an
  • account or set, or at any time since January 1,1999, has held, controlled, or maintained
  • or entity for e purpose of discovering information pertaining to the business transactions of
  • d, additionally, that representatives of the Commission, are specially appointed by
  • and thatthis Court retains jurisdiction &&is matter for all purposes.

  • 2 . COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ACT
    MONITOR
    COMMISSION
    RESTITUTION
    FINANCIAL STATEMENT
    VIOLATION
    TAX
    REQUIRING
    PURSUANT
    PAY RESTITUTION
    PARAGRAPHS
    FINANCIAL GROUP
    DEFENDANT
    SWORN FINANCIAL STATEMENT
    TAX RECORDS
    PAYMENT PLAN
    COURT
    TRADING
    PROVISION
    REGULATIONS
    PRACTICES
    LEXUS FINANCIAL GROUP
    INCOME
    COMMODITY
    RECEIVING
    MATTER
    AMOUNT
    ENJOIN
    VIRTUE
    
                                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                     FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
    
         COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING
         COMMISSION,
                                                             Plaintiff,          CIVIL ACTION NO: 
                                                                                 CIV-HURLEY
    
                           v.                                                    COMPLAINT FOR A
                                                                                 INJUNCTION AND OTHER
                                                                                 EQUITABLE RELIEF, AND
         DAVID A. LUGER,                                                         MONETARY PENALTIES
                                                             Defendant.          THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE
                                                                                 AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C.
    
    
                                                                  I. SUMMARY
    
         1.         Defendant David Alan Luger ("Luger") has violated, and continues to violate, an
    
    order entered by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission") in settlement of
    
    fraud charges.
    
         2.         In November 1996, the Commission filed an administrative complaint against Luger,
    
    among others, for fraudulently soliciting customers to trade options on commodity futures
    
    contracts ("options") in violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act,
    
    as amended (the "Act"), and regulations promulgated by the Commission ("Regulations").  In
    
    the Matter of Lexus Financial Group, et. al., CFTC Docket No. 97-4 (Nov. 1996).
    
         3.         In February 2000, Luger agreed to the entry of an order making findings and
    
    imposing remedial sanctions ("Order") requiring Luger and another defendant to jointly and
    
    severally pay $6.8 million in restitution, among other sanctions and undertakings. In the Matter
    
    of Lexus Financial Group, et. al. (Feb. 2000).
    
         4.         Based upon testimony provided by Luger concerning his income and net worth at that
    
    time, Luger was not ordered to pay restitution at the time the proceeding was settled.  Rather,
    
    Luger was ordered to pay restitution pursuant to a five-year payment plan.  In accordance with
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • COMMISSION,
  • for fraudulently soliciting customers to trade options on commodity futures
  • contracts in violation of the anti-fraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act,
  • and regulations promulgated by the Commission.
  • In the Matter
  • of Lexus Financial Group, et. al..
  • Luger was not ordered to pay restitution at the time the proceeding was settled.
  • Luger was ordered to pay restitution pursuant to a five-year payment plan.
  • December 31 each year and to provide signed federal tax returns and other tax records by June
  • 30 of the year following the year for which the tax return was filed, so that the amount of
  • Defendant has engaged in, is engaging in and, unless restrained and enjoined, will
  • to enjoin the Defendant's unlawful acts and practices and to compel his
  • This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act,
  • Inc.; First Sierra Corp.; RGL Investments, Inc.; Options Trading Corp.; International Futures
  • Commission pursuant to a five-year payment plan, requiring Luger to pay a percentage of his
  • Luger did not have to pay restitution in any given year if his income was
  • The payment plan requires Luger to submit to the Monitor sworn financial statements
  • Luger's first sworn financial statement and year 1999 Tax
  • 2000 statement, Luger claimed he had been receiving $3,000 per month in salary.
  • The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 are realleged and incorporated
  • By virtue of the conduct described in
  • Luger has violated this provision of the Order.
  •    |