Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GREENE & COLLINS INC., A. LAWRENCE CARROLL, AND J. ROBERT COLLINS 

DOCKET NUMBER: 75-15; 235 

DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1975 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

NOTE: FORMERLY CEA DOCKET # 235. SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE IN THE CCH 

COMMODITY FUTURES LAW REPORTER, P20, 125 [1975-1977 TRANSFER BINDER]. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT, Petitioner, v. GREENE AND COLLINS, INC. A. LAWRENCE 

CARROLL and J. ROBERT COLLINS, Respondents. 

CFTC Docket No. 75-15 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On December 17, 1975, the Division of Enforcement moved the Administrative 

Law Judge to reconsider the Order issued December 12, 1975 or, in the 

alternative to certify prior motions for continuances to the Commission for 

disposition. The Division erroneously interpreted the December 12, 1975 Order 

as a denial of prior motions for continuance. However, neither the November 28 

Notice nor the December 12 Order granted or denied any pending motions. 

It is essential at this point to review in some detail the history of this 

case. The Complaint was issued on January 17, 1975. On April 1, 1975, the 

attorney for the Complainant moved that the matter be set down for hearing on a 

date certain. One must assume that the government was prepared at that time to 

present its case against Respondent. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

came into being shortly thereafter, necessitating some delay in this proceeding. 

On August 25, 1975, a Notice of Prehearing Conference was issued, and the 

prehearing conference was scheduled for September 23, 1975. On 

September 19, 1975, less than two working days before the scheduled prehearing 

conference, the Division of Enforcement, with the concurrence of the Respondent, 

moved for a continuance. The Motion for Continuance was granted, and the 

prehearing conference was rescheduled for November 18, 1975. Counsel for the 

parties were ordered to complete certain specified tasks on or before November 

7, 1975. 

On November 6, 1975, counsel for Respondent moved for a continuance. The 

Division of Enforcement did not oppose the motion. Neither the Division nor the 

Respondent filed the required documents by the November 7 date. It is apparent 

that the parties were aware long before November 7, 1975 that the prehearing 

Order of September 23, 1975 would not be satisfied. On November 7, 1975, an 

Order was issued extending the deadline for completing specified tasks until 

December 1, 1975 and rescheduling the prehearing conference for December 17, 

1975. 

On November 26, 1975, at 4:40 p.m., the Division of Enforcement moved for 

reconsideration of the November 7, 1975 Order on the grounds that counsel for 

the parties had arranged to meet on December 8, 1975 for the purpose of reaching 
Page 2 

a settlement. This motion was filed two working days prior to the deadline for 

completing the tasks specified in the November 7 Order. It is again apparent 

that counsel for the parties had made little or no effort to comply with the 

prior orders inasmuch as they had not even scheduled a meeting until December 8, 

1975. 

By Notice issued November 28, 1975, counsel for the parties were advised that 

the untimely filing of motions would not be countenanced 

in the future. No ruling was made on the motions for additional time. On 

December 10, 1975, the Division of Enforcement moved to have this matter 

continued without date, pending the preparation of settlement documents for 

presentation to the Commission. 

On December 12, 1975, counsel for the Division of Enforcement was ordered to 

file with the Hearing Clerk a statement or equivalent document showing that the 

Commission had allowed the Respondent to consent to an order. On December 16, 

1975, counsel for the Division, with the consent, knowledge and approval of 

counsel for Respondents, discussed the December 12, 1975 Order with the 

Administrative Law Judge. Counsel for the Division (Messrs. Schief, Dandy, and 

Sippel) were advised that a statement or document should be filed with the 

Hearing Clerk on or before December 17, 1975, which statement or document should 

clearly show that the Commission had allowed Respondents to consent to an order. 

The document filed by the Division fails to show this to be the case. 

It is clear from the record in this case that the parties have made no real 

effort to comply with prehearing orders. Even now, the Division has not 

submitted copies of proposed exhibits or copies of proposed witness lists. 

Prehearing memoranda have not been submitted. There has been a disregard of 

valid unvacated orders by both parties. The apparent confluent interests of 

Respondents and the Division of Enforcement more than suggests that orderly and 

impartial litigation of this matter has been negated. 

Based upon the foregoing recitation, it is deemed that the Division has 

effectively abandoned prosecution of the Complaint and instead has 

limited its activities to settling the issues. For that reason, this case is 

hereby DISMISSED from the docket of the presiding Administrative Law Judge. 

Should the parties be successful in obtaining approval of a settlement by the 

Commission, all issues are, of course, moot. In the event that it is not 

possible, either party may petition the Administrative Law Judge to reopen and 

reconsider this case. However, any such petition is to be accompanied by: 

a. copies of exhibits to be offered in evidence; 

b. a witness list, with summaries of expected testimony; 

c. an offer to stipulate to matters not in substantial controversy; 

d. a proposed trial agenda; and 

e. a recommended time and place for the prehearing conference and the hearing 

on the merits. 

This proceeding is accordingly DISMISSED without prejudice to either party. 

Dated this 29th day of December, 1975 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

George H. Painter 

Administrative Law Judge 
Page 3 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 4