., • u.s. DaSiniCT cou:n -, NORTHERN DISTRiCT OF TEXAS 

FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE 

DALLAS DIVISION 

I JUL 2 ~ 2007 I _______________ _j 

S::L£RK, U.S. Ui~ i H.i~T COURT 

Hy ------~--

UNITED STATES COMMODITY 

FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., 

a Delaware Limited Partnership; 

ENERGY TRANSFER COMPANY 

(a/k/a La Grange Acquisition, L.P.), 

a Texas Limited Partnership; 

ETC MARKETING, LTD., a Texas 

Limited Partnership; HOUSTON 

PIPELINE COMPANY, a Texas 

Corporation, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

8•07CV1801~1{ 

COMPLAINT FOR 

INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER 

EQUITABLE RELIEF AND 

CIVIL MONETARY 

PENAL TIES UNDER THE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE 

ACT 

Plaintiff, United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission"), by its 

attorneys, alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY 

1. As more fully alleged below, Defendants Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., Energy 

Transfer Company, ETC Marketing, Ltd., and Houston Pipeline Company (collectively the 

"Defendants") have engaged in acts and practices that constitute violations ofthe Commodity 

Exchange Act, as amended (the "Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (2002). 

2. Specifically, during the period beginning in late September 2005 and ending in 

early December 2005 (the "relevant period"), Defendants' employees (i) attempted to manipulate 
the price of physical natural gas baseload transactions for delivery at the Houston Ship Channel 

("HSC") by intentionally flooding the HSC market with massive quantities of physical natural 

gas to place downward pressure on the price, and (ii) attempted to manipulate the October 2005 

and December 2005 HSC monthly index prices of natural gas published by Platts (a division of 

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.) in its Inside FERC's Gas Market Report ("Inside FERC'), 

by intentionally submitting to Inside FERC price and volume information about these baseload 

transactions for use by Platts in calculating the monthly indexes, all in violation of Sections 6( c), 

6(d), and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 13b, and 13(a)(2) (2002). Defendants' employees 

devised and executed this scheme in order to benefit Defendants' financial basis swap contracts 

tied to the October 2005 and December 2005 Inside FERC monthly price indexes at HSC. 

3. The overt acts in furtherance of the attempted manipulations alleged below 

occurred, in part, on the IntercontinentalExchange ("ICE"), an electronic trading platform 

operating as an exempt commercial market under Sections 2(h)(3) and 2(h)(5) of the Act. 7 

U.S. C. §§ 2(h)(3) and (h)(5). 

4. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §13a-1, the Commission 

brings this action against Defendants to enjoin such acts and practices, and to compel compliance 

with the provisions of the Act. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary penalties and 

such other ancillary relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. 

5. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable likelihood that 

Defendants will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint or in 

similar acts and practices, as more fully described below. 

2 
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 13a-1, which authorizes the Commission to seek injunctive relief against any person, or, 

to enforce compliance with the Act whenever it shall appear to the Commission that such person 

has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of 

any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation or order thereunder. 

7. .. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-l (e), in that Defendants are found in, inhabit and transact business in this District, and/or 

the acts and practices in violation of the Act have occurred, are occurring, or are about to occur 

within this District. 

III. THE PARTIES 

8. Plaintiff Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency charged with 

the administration and enforcement of the Act, 7 U.S. C. §§ 1 et seq., and the regulations 

promulgated thereunder, 17 C.P.R.§§ 1.1 et seq. 

9. Defendant Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP"), a Delaware limited 

partnership, is a multi-billion dollar publicly-traded energy company with its principal place of 

business in Dallas, Texas. ETP's business includes the gathering, compression, processing, 

transportation and storage of natural gas. Its natural gas operations include approximately 

12,000 miles of natural gas gathering and transportation pipelines. ETP's employees buy and 

sell, or direct its subsidiaries' employees to buy and sell, physical and financial natural gas 

contracts for profit. 

3 
10. Defendant Energy Transfer Company (a/k/a La Grange Acquisition, L.P.) 

("ETC"), a Texas limited partnership, is a subsidiary ofETP with business offices located in San 

Antonio and Houston, Texas. ETC engages in natural gas midstream operations (i.e., the 

portion of the natural gas business between the production of the natural gas from wells and the 

delivery of natural gas to retail, commercial and industrial customers) and intrastate natural gas 

transportation and storage operations for ETP. ETC's employees buy and sell physical and 

financial natural gas contracts for ETP and ETC for profit, including under the name "ETC 

Marketing, Ltd." 

11. Defendant Houston Pipeline Company ("HPLC"), a Texas corporation, is a 

subsidiary of ETP with business offices in Houston, Texas. HPLC serves the HSC natural gas 

market, the city of Houston, other natural gas delivery locations or "hubs," and owns the 

Barnmel Gas Storage Facility ("Barnmel"), which is located near Houston. HPLC's employees 

also buy and sell physical and financial natural gas contracts for ETP and ETC for profit, 

including under the name "ETC Marketing, Ltd." 

12. Defendant ETC Marketing, Ltd. ("ETC Marketing"), a Texas limited 

partnership, is a subsidiary ofETP with business offices located in San Antonio, Texas. ETC 

Marketing's employees buy and sell physical and financial natural gas contracts for ETP, ETC 

and HPLC for profit, both on and off exchange, including on ICE. ETP and ETC traded on ICE 

under the name ETC Marketing. 

4 
IV. FACTS 

A. Background 

1. The Natural Gas Market and the HSC Natural Gas Delivery Hub 

13. During the relevant period, natural gas was a commodity that was typically 

transported in interstate commerce through a network of pipelines across the United States. 

14. Much of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the Gulf 

Coast region, primarily in Texas and Louisiana, and shipped by pipeline to the biggest consumer 

markets in the Midwest and Northeastern states. 

15. Texas is one of the largest gas consuming states, with natural gas flowing from 

the southern onshore production areas to the northern part of the state through pipelines 

concentrated on the Texas east coast, and from the west Texas production areas to the consuming 

areas near Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. 

16. The HSC natural gas delivery location or "hub," located near Houston, Texas, is 

one of the principal gateways for natural gas destined for markets in Texas, serving a highly 

concentrated area oflarge-volume consumers within Texas, including chemical plants, refineries, 

and power generating stations. 

17. HSC is also an important byway for natural gas continuing north to interstate 

pipelines delivering gas to the Midwest and Northeastern states. Natural gas delivered at HSC is 

a commodity in interstate commerce. 

18. Roughly fifteen percent of all gas produced in the United States flows through 

ETP's and its subsidiaries' natural gas gathering and transportation pipelines, three natural gas 

5 
processing plants, fourteen natural gas treating facilities and three natural gas storage facilities, 

including the Bammel natural gas storage facility. 

2. Physical Trades and the Natural Gas Price Indexes 

19. During the relevant period, at the direction ofETP, natural gas traders at ETC, 

HPLC and ETC Marketing bought and sold natural gas for profit. To that end, their traders 

entered into transactions calling for the actual physical delivery of natural gas ("physical trades") 

to certain natural gas delivery hubs, including at HSC. 

20. Physical trades were typically priced with either a "fixed-price" set at the time of 

the transaction, or with reference to an index price to be set at a later date. The physical trades at 

issue here are "fixed-price" natural gas transactions. 

21. During the relevant period, natural gas traders and energy companies, including 

the Defendants, reported price and volume information ("trade data") regarding their fixed-price 

physical trades for specific natural gas delivery hubs, like HSC, to companies that calculated 

natural gas price indexes ("indexes"), including Platts' Inside FERC. 

22. During the relevant period, Platts collected from market participants, including 

Defendants, trade data relating to fixed-price, "baseload" transactions that were negotiated 

during "bid week" for specific natural gas delivery hubs, including HSC. 

23. A "baseload" transaction refers to a natural gas trade that requires the seller to 

deliver physical natural gas to the buyer at a particular natural gas delivery hub (like HSC), 

ratably, over the course of the following month (the "prompt month"). "Bidweek" typically 

refers to the last five business days of the month before the prompt-month begins. 

6 
24. During the relevant period, Defendants' employees knew that Platts used trade 

data collected from natural gas market participants, including the Defendants, about fixed-price, 

baseload contracts negotiated during bidweek, to calculate and publish its Inside FERC monthly 

price indexes for specific natural gas delivery hubs, including HSC. The Inside FERC monthly 

price indexes were published by Platts at the beginning of each month following the bidweek 

during which trade data was collected. 

25. During the relevant period, natural gas market participants widely used price 

indexes, including Inside FERC, for various purposes, including the pricing of both physical and 

financial natural gas contracts (including financial basis swaps). Moreover, natural gas market 

participants referred to indexes for price discovery and for assessing price risks. 

3. Financial Basis Swaps 

26. Natural gas market participants, including the Defendants, also trade, via 

"financial basis swaps," the price difference (or "differential'} between the index for certain 

physical natural gas trading locations, such as HSC, and the price of the Henry Hub ("HH") 

natural gas futures contract traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX"). 

27. Normally, natural gas market participants, such as the Defendants, execute these 

financial basis swaps to hedge price risk, often in conjunction with NYMEX HH futures 

contracts, to speculate on the difference between the price of natural gas at the named location 

and the price of natural gas at HH, or both. 

28. The financial basis swap at issue here is the HSC financial basis swap. The buyer 

and seller of an HSC financial basis swap exchange payment streams, with the buyer paying the 

7 
seller the HH NYMEX final settlement price plus or minus a differential, and the seller paying 

the buyer the monthly HSC index price published by Inside FERC. 

29. By entering the HSC financial basis swap, the seller will obtain a financial benefit 

the lower the Inside FERC index price moves from the HH NYMEX settlement price, and thus 

the wider the difference between the two prices. 

30. During (and prior to) the relevant period, employees at ETC, ETC Marketing and 

HPLC (at the direction or with the consent ofETP) entered into financial basis swaps, including 

HSC financial basis swaps, with other natural gas market participants. 

4. The lntercontinentalExchange 

31. Natural gas market participants, including the Defendants, enter into and execute 

physical trades and financial basis swaps on electronic trading platforms, as well as through 

direct negotiations with other market participants in the bilateral markets. 

32. ICE is an electronic trading platform that offers trading in physical natural gas 

contracts for over 100 natural gas hubs in North America, including the HSC. In addition to 

trading in physical natural gas, ICE offers trading in a number of financial natural gas contracts, 

including HSC financial basis swaps. 

B. The Defendants Attempted to Manipulate the Price of October Baseload Natural 

Gas For Delivery at HSC During the September 2005 Bidweek. 

33. By September 22, 2005, ETC's traders had purchased at the Waha natural gas 

delivery hub, which is located in West Texas, approximately 3,357,000 MMbtus of natural gas 

(i.e., had acquired a "long" physical Waha natural gas position), intending to sell the vast 

majority of that natural gas at HSC, at prices higher than ETC had purchased it at W aha, by 

transporting it on pipelines from Waha to HSC as October 2005 baseload natural gas. 

8 
• 

34. By September 23, 2005, ETC and HPLC traders had built a net short financial 

basis swap position (approximately 15,882,653 MMbtus) in the October 2005 HSC financial 

basis swap. The financial basis swap ultimately would be settled based upon the difference 

between the October Inside FERCHSC monthly index price (published the first ofthe month in 

October) and the HH NYMEX settlement price (published at the close of trading in that contract 

on September 28, 2005). 

35. On September 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita made landfall, impacting the Texas and 

Louisiana Gulf Coast region by, among other things, reducing the demand for natural gas in the 

Houston consuming area as area residents evacuated due to the storm. 

36. Beginning on Monday, September 26, 2005 (the first day ofthe September 2005 

bidweek for October baseload natural gas), Defendants' employees, working in combination and 

concert with each other, devised a scheme to attempt to benefit their HSC financial basis swap 

positions by attempting to depress the price of physical natural gas at HSC by: (i) intentionally 

buying on September 26 and 27,2005 additional quantities of physical natural gas at Waha for 

transport to HSC during the month of October; (ii) intentionally increasing the short HSC 

financial basis swap position; (iii) intentionally dumping (selling) on September 28, 2005 a 

massive quantity of fixed-price, base load natural gas; and (iv) then intentionally reporting trade 

data reflecting those fixed-price, baseload sales to Inside FERC for its use in calculating the 

October Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC. Defendants' employees devised and 

executed this scheme in order to benefit Defendants' financial basis swap contracts tied to the 

October 2005 Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC. 

9 
37. Defendants' employees' intent to attempt to manipulate the price of natural gas at 

HSC is reflected, in part, in a recorded telephone conversation on September 26, 2005 between 

an ETP Senior Vice President and an employee ofHPLC. In that conversation, the ETP Senior 

Vice President instructed at least one of his traders to "come out hard today for tomorrow" and 

"as much market as y' all can capture, capture it" and "even if you oversell [HSC], we'll figure it 

out later." In the same conversation, the ETP Senior Vice President said, "as long as we sell as 

much as we can, it ought to push [Houston] ship [Channel] down." He continued, ''You know, it 

would be nice to have [Houston] Ship [Channel] kinda spread back out from from from uh .. , 

both for this month or October, also for our for our summer winter business." 

38. Consistent with that instruction, on September 26 and 27, 2005, ETC traders (who 

were also agents of ETC Marketing) bought up additional natural gas at W aha for transport to 

HSC in October. When combined with the natural gas purchases at W aha for October HSC 

baseload delivery made before September 23rd, Defendants' total long physical Waha positionincreased to 8,707,776 MMbtus, or 8.7 Bcf of natural gas, nearly triple its earlier long Waha · 

position despite the decreased demand at the HSC hub due to area residents having evacuated the 

Houston area in the wake of Hurricane Rita. 

39. On September 28,2005, beginning at approximately 2:00p.m., an ETC trader, 

under the name "ETC Marketing," at the direction of the ETP Senior Vice President, dumped 

(sold) on ICE and in the bilateral market (i.e., executed through direct negotiations with other 

market participants) approximately 11.2 Bcf of natural gas for base load delivery in October 2005 

at HSC in an attempt to exert downward pressure on the prices at HSC. Nearly 9 Bcf ofthese 

10 
sales were executed on ICE. The ETC trader who executed the baseload natural gas contracts on 

ICE was an agent of ETC Marketing. 

40. Thirty-four of the thirty-five fixed-price trades executed on September 28, 2005 

on ICE in the HSC baseload contract were executed by an ETC trader at the direction of the ETP 

Senior Vice President and under the name ETC Marketing, comprising 96.65% of all HSC 

October baseload sales volume on ICE that day. 

41. Simultaneous with the conduct outlined in paragraph 38 and before the conduct 

described in paragraph 39 above, by approximately 1:00 p.m. EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) on 

September 28, 2005, ETC and HPLC traders had increased their short HSC financial basis swap 

position by 7,952,500 MMbtus, for a total short HSC fmancial basis swap position of23,835, 153 

MMbtus of natural gas - or approximately 23.8 Bcf of natural gas. The financial basis swap 

ultimately would be settled based upon the difference between the October Inside FERC monthly 

price index at HSC (published the first of the month in October) and the HH NYMEX settlement 

price (published at the close of trading in that contract on September 28, 2005). 

42. Thereafter, ETC employees prepared a spreadsheet containing trade data 

reflecting Defendants' fixed-price, baseload natural gas contracts for delivery at HSC that were 

executed on September 28, 2005. 

43. ETC employees then submitted that spreadsheet to Platts for use by Platts in 

calculating the October Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC, and knowing that Platts would 

likely use this trade data in calculating the October Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC. 

44. On October 1, 2005, Inside FERC published the HSC monthly price index. The 

index price was based upon the trade data Platts had obtained from natural gas market 

11 
participants about their fixed-price, October baseload deals negotiated during the September 

2005 bidweek. 

45. ETP executives and employees directed, consented to, and/or ratified the trading 

conduct and reporting to Inside FERC, set forth in paragraphs 33 through 44 above. 

C. The Defendants Attempted to Manipulate the Price of December Baseload Natural 

Gas For Delivery at HSC During the November 2005 bidweek. 

46. Beginning on or about November 21,2005 (the first day.ofthe November 2005 

bidweek for December baseload natural gas), Defendants' employees, working in combination 

with each other, devised a scheme to repeat the trading strategy they had employed during the 

September 2005 bidweek, for essentially the same purpose. Namely, the Defendants' employees 

attempted to benefit their HSC financial basis swap positions tied to the December Inside FERC 

monthly price index at HSC by: (i) intentionally buying on November 21, 22, and 28, 2005 large 

quantities of natural gas at the Waha hub for transport to HSC during the month of December; 

(ii) intentionally dumping (selling) on November 28 a massive quantity of fixed-price, baseload 

natural gas on the HSC market; (iii) intentionally increasing the HSC short financial basis swap 

position; and (iv) then intentionally reporting trade data reflecting those fixed-price, base load 

sales to Inside FERC for its use in calculating the December Inside FERC monthly price index at 

HSC. 

4 7. Prior to November 21, 2005, ETC held a net short position of 992,031 MMbtu of 

physical natural gas at Waha for December 2005 baseload delivery. Consistent with Defendants' 

employees intent to acquire a large amount of natural gas to sell at HSC for December 2005 

baseload delivery, on November 21, 22, and 28, 2005, ETC traders purchased 4,771,954 

MMbtus of natural gas at Waha for transport to HSC in December. Accordingly, Defendants' 

12 
total net long physical Waha position increased to 3,779,923 MMbtus, or about 3.8 Bcf of 

natural gas. 

48. On November 28, 2005, an ETC trader, under the name "ETC Marketing," 

dumped (sold) on ICE approximately 9 Bcf of natural gas for baseload delivery in December 

2005 at HSC in an attempt to exert downward pressure on the prices at HSC. The ETC trader 

who executed the baseload natural gas contracts on ICE was an agent of ETC Marketing. 

49. Thirty-one of the thirty-four trades executed on November 28, 2005 on ICE in the 

HSC baseload contract were executed by ETC traders (under the name ETC Marketing), 

comprising 95.7% of all HSC Decemberbaseload sales volume on ICE that day. 

50. Simultaneously, Defendants built an even larger financial short position in the 

HSC December 2005 basis swap contract than they had in September 2005. During the conduct 

outlined in paragraphs 47 and 48 above, i.e., from November 21 to November 28, 2005, ETC and 

HPLC traders increased their short HSC financial basis swap position by 13,480,009 MMbtus, 

for a total short HSC financial basis swap position of 45,181,360 MMbtus of natural gas- or 

approximately 45.2 Bcf of natural gas. The financial basis swap ultimately would be settled 

based upon the difference between the December Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC 

(published the first of the month in December) and the HH NYMEX settlement price (published 

at the close of trading in that contract on November 28, 2005). 

51. Thereafter, ETC employees prepared a spreadsheet containing trade data 

reflecting Defendants fixed-price, baseload natural gas contracts for delivery at HSC that were 

executed on November 28,2005. 

13 
52. ETC employees then submitted that spreadsheet to Platts for use by Platts in 

calculating the December Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC, knowing that Platts would 

likely use this trade data in calculating the December Inside FERC monthly price index at HSC. 

53. On December 1,2005, Inside FERC published the HSC monthly price index. That 

index price was based upon the trade data Platts had obtained from natural gas market 

participants about their fixed-price, December baseload deals negotiated during the November 

2005 bidweek. 

54. ETP executives and employees directed, consented to, and/or ratified the trading 

conduct, and reporting to Inside FERC, set forth in paragraphs 46 through 53 above. 

V. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

(All Defendants) 

55. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 above are re-alleged and 

incorporated by reference into each Count alleged below. 

56. Pursuant to Section 9(a)(2) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(2), it is unlawful for any 

person to "[m]anipulate or attempt to manipulate the price of any commodity in interstate 

commerce or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity, including any 

contract market." 

57. Sections 6(c) and 6(d) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and l3b, together authorize the 

Commission to serve a complaint and provide for the imposition of, among other things, fines 

and penalties if the Commission "has reason to believe that any person ... has manipulated or 

attempted to manipulate the market price of any commodity, in interstate commerce, or for future 

14 
delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market ... or otherwise is violating or has 

violated any of the provisions of [the] Act." 

COUNT I 

(Attempted Manipulation in September 2005 of the October Baseload Contracts at 

HSC and October 2005 HSC Index Price in Order to Benefit the HSC Financial Basis 

Swap) 

58. Defendants' employees violated Sections 6(c), 6(d), and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2), when they attempted to manipulate the price of natural gas, a 

commodity in interstate commerce. Defendants' employees had the specific intent to manipulate 

the price of physical natural gas at HSC, the index price of natural gas at HSC, and/or the HSC 

financial basis swap when they engaged in, among others, the overt act(s) set forth in paragraphs 

33 through 45 above. 

59. Each occasion upon which Defendants' employees attempted to manipulate the 

price of physical natural gas at HSC is alleged herein as a separate and distinct violation of 

Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2). 

60. Each occasion upon which Defendants' employees attempted to manipulate the 

Inside PERC monthly price index of natural gas at HSC in order to benefit their HSC financial 

basis swap is alleged herein as a separate and distinct violation of Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2). 

61. Defendants are liable for their employees' conduct pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) 

of Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B), for violations ofthe Act. 

15 
COUNTll 

(Attempted Manipulation in November 2005 of the December 2005 Baseload Contracts at 

HSC and December HSC Index Price in Order to Benefit HSC Financial Basis Swap) 

62. Defendants' employees violated Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 

U.S. C. §§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2) when they attempted to manipulate the price of natural gas, a 

commodity in interstate commerce. Defendants' employees had the specific intent to manipulate 

the price of physical natural gas at HSC, the index price of natural gas at HSC, and/or the HSC 

financial basis swap when they engaged in, among others, the overt act(s) set forth in paragraphs 

46 through 54 above. 

63. Each occasion upon which Defendants' employees attempted to manipulate the 

price of physical natural gas at HSC is alleged herein as a separate and distinct violation of 

Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S. C.§§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2). 

64. Each occasion upon which Defendants' employees attempted to manipulate the 

Inside FERC monthly price index of natural gas at HSC in order to benefit their HSC financial 

basis swap is alleged herein as a separate and distinct violation of Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2). 

65. Defendants are liable for their employees' conduct pursuant to Section 2(a)(l)(B) 

of Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l){B), for violations of the Act. 

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter an order 

of permanent injunction: 

A. Restraining and enjoining Defendants and any of their affiliates, 

agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons 

16 
in active concert with them who receive actual notice of such order by 

personal service or otherwise, from directly or indirectly violating Sections 

6(c), 6(d), and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b, and 13(a)(2); 

B. Directing Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties, to be assessed 

by the Court against the Defendants, in amounts not to exceed $130,000 

for each violation, or triple the monetary gain to them for each violation of the Act, as 

described herein; and 

C. Providing for such other and further remedial and ancillary relief as 

this Court may deem necessary and appropriate. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

RICHARD B. ROPER 

United States Attorney 

/,//JAMES ~---~~ P. LAURENCE 

V Assistant U. S. Attorney 

Oklahoma Bar No. 005276 

1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor 

Dallas, Texas 75242-1699 

Tel: 214.659.8646 

Fax: 214.767.2916 

J ames.Laurence@usdoj .gov 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

17 
UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

Kathleen M. Banar, Chief Trial Attorney 

(lll. Bar No. 6200597) 

kbanar@cftc.gov (pro hac vice admission pending) 

Kim G. Bruno, Counsel to the Director 

(D.C. Bar No. 389899) 

kbruno@cftc.gov (pro hac vice admission pending) 

James Deacon, Senior Trial Attorney 

(D.C. Bar No. 476296) 

jdeacon@cftc.gov (pro hac vice admission pending) 

United States Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission 

Division ofEnforcement 

1155 21st Street, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Telephone: (202) 418-5000 

Fax: (202) 418-5531 

18