Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: INDIANA FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION INC. AND LOUIS M. JOHNSTON 

CITATION: 1983 CFTC LEXIS 489; 1983 WL 29481 

DOCKET NUMBER: 75-14; 234 

DATE: MARCH 1, 1983 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER 

NOTE: FORMERLY CEA DOCKET # 234 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of INDIANA FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., and LOUIS M. 

JOHNSTON 

CFTC Docket No. 75-14 

ORDER 

On December 17, 1982, the Commission issued an opinion and order affirming 

the Administrative Law Judge's dismissal of the complaint in this proceeding. 

The Commission's decision to affirm the dismissal was unanimous. n1 Each of the 

Commissioners agreed that respondents could not be held causally responsible for 

the abrupt price increases which occurred during the liquidation of the July 

1973 corn futures contract on the Chicago Board of Trade. n2 The Division of 

Enforcement (the "Division") has filed a petition for reconsideration pursuant 

to Section 10.106 of the Commission's Regulations. The issues raised by the 

Division's petition focus on the disagreements that have already been 

extensively explored in the majority and concurring opinions issued in this 

case. n3 Even if the Commission were to adopt the resolution of 

the issues raised in the petition in the manner favored by the Division, the 

result in this case would not change. Any opinion we might issue would be, in 

effect, an advisory opinion. Section 10.106 was not intended to serve as a 

vehicle for such a pronouncement. 

n1 Chairman Johnson concurred in the result, but stated views 

substantially different than those of the majority on the issue of price 

artificiality and on the rights and duties of the longs in the futures 

market when forces or events beyond their control create a market 

congestion that interferes with the ability of shorts to deliver the 

commodity in satisfaction of their contractual obligations. In the Matter 

of Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative, CFTC Docket No. 75-14, Commission 

Opinion and Order (December 17, 1982) slip op. at 1-4 (Chairman Johnson's 

concurrence). Commissioner Stone also concurred in the result, but 

expressed separate views on the issues of an artificial price and intent. 

n2 Id. slip op. at 1 (Commissioner Stone's concurrence). 

n3 The issues raised by the Division are: 

1. Whether a finding of price artificiality depends upon the 

"legitimacy" of the factors affecting the price; and 
Page 2 

2. Whether, in a regulated market affected with a national public 

interest, a dominant long has a contractual right to exact the highest 

possible prices from the shorts during a natural market congestion. 

Upon consideration of the petition for reconsideration, and the record of 

this proceeding, IT IS ORDERED that the petition is DENIED. 

By the Commission (Commissioners PHILLIPS and HINEMAN; Chairman JOHNSON 

concurring; n4 Commissioner WEST not participating). 

n4 While I generally view the arguments and analysis presented by the 

Division of Enforcement as meritorious, I concur in the denial of its 

motion for reconsideration because the relief sought, even if granted in 

full, would not disturb the ultimate conclusion in this case that 

respondents were not the legal or culpable cause of the market events in 

question. See also footnote 1 to my concurring opinion filed December 17, 

1982. 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Jane K. Stuckey 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: March 1, 1983 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 3