Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: PROFESSIONAL COMMODITY SERVICE, INC., AND THEODORE W. LORD, SR. 

CITATION: 32 Agric. Dec. 592 

DOCKET NUMBER: 193 

DATE: MARCH 30, 1973 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SECOND ORDER VACATING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER 

(No. 15,075) 

In re PROFESSIONAL COMMODITY SERVICE, INC., and THEODORE W. LORD, SR. CEA 

Docket No. 193. Decided March 30, 1973. 

Second Order Vacating Recommended Decision and Order and Remanding Case for 

futher Proceedings

This order is issued in accordance with the facts and circumstances as set 

forth herein. 

Darrold A. Dandy, for complainant. 

Garth C. Grissom, Denver, Colorado, for respondents. 

John G. Liebert, Administrative Law Judge. 

Decision by Donald A. Campbell, Judicial Officer.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an administrative proceeding under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. 1 et seq.), in which the Administrative Law Judge, John G. Liebert, filed 

his first recommended decision and order on March 8, 1973. That proposed order 

denied the corporate respondent's application for registration as a futures 

commission merchant (1) because respondents did not establish that the 

corporation met the minimum financial requirements for registration, and (2) 

because the individual respondent wilfully omitted material facts from the 

application for registration with the intention of misleading the Commodity 

Exchange Authority. A cease and desist order was also proposed by the 

Administrative Law Judge, but he rejected the complainant's recommendation that 

the respondent should, in addition, be prohibited from trading on contract 

markets for one year. 

On March 16, 1973, the Judicial Officer vacated the Recommended Decision and 

Order and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge "with instructions 

to reopen the hearing to receive additional evidence, as set forth herein, and 

to file a new recommended or initial Decision and Order in this proceeding." 

These instructions were not complied with. Instead, the Administrative Law 

Judge filed a second Recommended Decision and Order on March 29, 1973, stating: 

On March 26, 1973, Respondents filed with the Hearing Clerk a copy of a 

letter dated March 23, 1973, addressed to the Administrator, Commodity Exchange 

Authority, requesting immediate withdrawal of the application of Professional 

Commodity Service, Inc., for registration as a futures commission merchant under 

the Act. This was the application filed with the CEA on October 20, 1971, 

amended on November 2, 1971, which is the subject of this proceeding. In 

consideration of this withdrawal of the application, it is hereby found and 

determined that this proceeding has been rendered moot. 
Page 2 

In accordance with the foregoing finding and determination it is recommended 

that this proceeding be dismissed. 

The respondents' request to withdraw the application for registration as a 

futures commission merchant does not make the proceeding moot. Peoples 

Securities Co. v. Securities and Exchange Co., 289 F.2d 268, 274-275 (C.A. 5); 

Blaise D'Antoni & Associates, Inc. v. Securities & Exch. Com'n., 289 F.2d 276, 

277 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied, 368 U.S. 899; Blaise D'Antoni & Associates, 

Inc. v. Securities & Exch. Com'n., 290 F.2d 688, 689 (C.A. 5). As stated in the 

last case just cited (290 F.2d at 689): 

When Mr. D'Antoni filed his application for registration, he placed himself 

under the Commission's "scrutiny". The withdrawal of an ungranted application 

for registration as a broker-dealer may affect the public interest as well as 

the grant of an application. Cf. Columbia General Investment Corp. v. S. E. C., 

5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 559. By attaching important consequences, vitally 

affecting the applican tand his future status, to the revelation of improper 

activities on the applicant's part, Congress indicated that an applicant 

subjects himself to the Commission's scrutiny from the moment he files his 

application for registration. He cannot escape those consequences by 

withdrawing in the face of an S.E.C. investigation. 

Similarly, under the Commodity Exchange Act, important consequences may 

result from the wilful filing of a false or misleading application for 

registration, notwithstanding the respondents' desire to withdraw the 

application. See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. 9, 12a. 

Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge erred in failing to comply with the 

Order filed March 16, 1973, and the case should again be remanded to the Judge 

with the same instructions. However, the need for giving the case priority over 

other matters no longer exists since the respondents have indicated that they no 

longer desire to pursue the application for registration. 

ORDER

The Recommended Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge filed on 

March 29, 1973, in this proceeding is vacated and the proceeding is again 

remanded to the Administrative Law Judge with instructions to reopen the hearing 

to receive additional evidence, as set forth in the Order filed March 16, 1973, 

and to file a new recommended or initial Decision and Order in this proceeding 

without undue delay. 

LOAD-DATE: June 9, 2008 
Page 3