Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RICHARD D. LUPORI, AND ALAN R. COYNE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 221 

DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1973 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Richard D. Lupori, and Alan R. Coyne, Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 221 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act 

There is reason to believe that the respondents, Richard D. Lupori and Alan 

R. Coyne, have violated the Commodity Exchange Act as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1 et 

seq.), hereinafter the "Act", and the regulations made pursuant thereto. In 

accordance with the provisions of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 9 

and 13b), this Complaint and Notice of Hearing is issued stating the charges in 

that respect as follows: 

I 

Respondent Richard D. Lupori, an individual whose business address is Room 

1350, 144 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was at all 

times material herein a registered floor broker under the Act and a member of 

the Chicago Board of Trade. 

II 

Respondent Alan R. Coyne, an individual whose business address is Room 1350, 

144 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, is now and was at all times 

material herein a registered floor broker under the Act and a member of the 

Chicago Board of Trade. 

III 

At all times material herein respondents were employed by and carried their 

personal trading accounts with Kelly Grain Company of Chicago, Illinois, a 

registered futures commission merchant under the Act and a clearing member of 

the Chicago Board of Trade. 

IV 

The transactions referred to in this complaint relate to contracts for the 

purchase or sale of July 1972 soybean futures on the Chicago Board of Trade, a 

duly designated contract market under the Act. The soybean contracts resulting 

from the execution of the orders hereinafter described were capable of being 

used for hedging transactions in interstate commerce in such commodity or the 

products or byproducts thereof, or determining the price basis of any such 

transaction in interstate commerce in such commodity, or delivering any such 

commodity sold, shipped or received in interstate commerce. 

V 

In May of 1972 respondent Lupori, in his capacity as floor broker, had 

received for execution orders to sell and orders to buy July 1972 soybean 

futures for the accounts of various customers. Respondent Coyne accommodated 

respondent Lupori by executing these transactions, as listed below, in a 
Page 2 

noncompetitive manner with respondent Lupori, which resulted in respondent 

Lupori's crossing these customer's orders. 

An error occurred in the processing of a table at this point in the document. 

Please refer to the table in the online document. 

 

An error occurred in the processing of a table at this point in the document. 

Please refer to the table in the online document. 

 

VI 

In May of 1972 respondent Lupori, in his capacity as floor broker, had 

received for execution orders to sell and orders to buy July 1972 soybean 

futures for the accounts of various customers. Respondent Coyne accommodated 

respondent Lupori by executing the transactions, listed below, in a 

noncompetitive manner with respondent Lupori, which resulted in respondent 

Lupori's taking the opposite side of customers' orders for his (Lupori's) own 

account, without the prior consent of such customers. 

An error occurred in the processing of a table at this point in the document. 

Please refer to the table in the online document. 

 

VII 

On May 18 and 19, 1972, respondent Lupori gave to respondent Coyne orders for 

the sale of July 1972 soybean futures to be made for respondent Lupori's 

account. Thereafter respondent Lupori acting for customers bought from 

respondent Coyne July 1972 soybean futures, as listed below, with the result 

that respondent Lupori was able to take the opposite side of his customers' 

orders without the prior consent of such customers. 

An error occurred in the processing of a table at this point in the document. 

Please refer to the table in the online document. 

VIII 

On May 17 and 22, 1972, respondent Lupori prepared and turned in trading 

cards, to various futures commission merchants, purporting to show that he had 

executed the transactions in July 1972 soybean futures, as listed below, for the 

customers of such futures commission merchants, whereas, in fact, no such 

transactions actually had taken place, but, rather, respondent Lupori merely 

"carded" such transactions and took the opposite side thereof into his own 

account. 

See original document-page 6 

(In thousands of bushels) 

Date Quantity Price Opposite Broker 

Bought Sold Customer and Customer 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 

5-17-72 5 3.61-1/8 Continental 16311 Lupori 

5-17-72 5 3.61-1/8 duPont 48845869-21 Lupori 

5-22-72 10 3.58 Continental 28408 Lupori 

IX 

On May 17 and 22, 1972, respondent Lupori prepared and turned in several 

trading cards, to various futures commission merchants, which cards were 

endorsed by respondent Lupori to show the initials "AL" for the opposite 

executing floor broker, whereas, in fact, there was no such opposite executing 

floor broker, and respondent Lupori merely "carded" such transaction. 

X 
Page 3 

During May of 1972, respondents failed to note on various trading cards the 

time of execution of verbal orders they gave to each other for their personal 

accounts. 

XI 

By reason of the facts described in this complaint respondents wilfully 

violated sections 4b and 4c of the Act (7 U.S.C. 6b and 6c), and sections 1.35, 

1.38 and 1.39 of the regulations thereunder (17 CFR 1.35, 1.38 and 1.39). 

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that this complaint and notice of hearing be 

served upon the respondents and this proceeding shall be 

governed by sections 0.1, 0.2, 0.4(b), 0.5 through 0.22 and 0.28 of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR 0.1, 0.2, 0.4(b), 0.5 through 

0.22 and 0.28). The respondents will have twenty (20) days after the receipt of 

this complaint in which to file with the Hearing Clerk, United States Department 

of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, an answer with an original and three 

copies, fully and completely stating the nature of the defense and admitting or 

denying, specifically and in detail, each allegation of this complaint. 

Allegations not answered will be deemed admitted for the purpose of this 

proceeding. Failure to file an answer will constitute an admission of all the 

allegations of this complaint and a waiver of hearing. The filing of an answer 

in which all of the material allegations of fact contained in this complaint are 

admitted, likewise shall constitute a waiver of hearing unless a hearing is 

requested. The respondents are hereby notified that unless hearing is waived, a 

hearing will be held in Chicago, Illinois, at a place therein and date to be 

specified later, before an Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct such 

hearing. At such hearing, the respondents will have the right to appear and 

show cause, if any there be, why an appropriate order should not be issued in 

accordance with the Commodity Exchange Act, (1) suspending or revoking the 

registration of the respondents as floor brokers, (2) prohibiting the 

respondents from trading on or subject to the rules of any contract market, and 

directing that all contract markets refuse all trading privileges to the 

respondents for such period of time as may be determined and (3) directing that 

the 

respondents shall cease and desist from violating the Act and regulations in the 

manner alleged herein. 

Done at Washington, D.C. 

December 21 1973 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

CLAYTON YEUTTER 

Assistant Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 4