UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

In the Matter of: 

Goldman Sachs Execution & 

Clearing, L.P. 

------------------------------

) 

) 

) CFTC Docket 12-16 

) 

) 

) 

) 

"'I:J 

-) 

" ~ 

'00 

.J 

I·..., -~ 

. . .. ~" 

:) ;::. , , . . ;. (," 

:;" Cl 

) :.";} ...." 

.. t..l 

.-..) 

= r-.) 

V'I 

o 

ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 6(c) AND 

6(d) OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE J\CT, AS AMENDED, MAKING 

FINDINGS AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 

I. 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "Commission") has reason to 

believe that, from in or about May 2007 to December 2009 ("Relevant Period"), 

Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. ("GSEC") has violated Commission 

Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2011). Therefore, the Commission deems it 

appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and 

hereby are, instituted to determine whether GSEC has engaged in the violations as set 

forth herein and to determine whether an order should be issued imposing remedial 

sanctions. 

II. 

In anticipation of instituting an administrative proceeding, GSEC has submitted 

an OfTer of Settlement (the "Offer"), which the Commission has determined to accept. 

Without admitting or denying any of the findings or conclusions herein, GSEC consents 

to the entry of this Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c) and 6(d) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, as Amended, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial 

Sanctions (the "Order") and acknowledges service of the Order. I 

III. 

I GSEC consents to the entry of this Order and the use of these findings in this 

proceeding and in any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the 

Commission is a party; provided, however, that GSEC does not consent to the use of the 

OfTer, or the findings or conclusions in this Order and consented to in the OfTer, as the 

sole basis for any other proceeding broUght by the Commission, other than in a 

proceeding in bankruptcy or to enforce the terms of this Order. Nor does GSEC consent 

to the use of the Offer or this Order, or the findings or conclusions in this Order and 

consented to in the Offer, by any other party in any other proceeding. 
The Commission finds the following: 

A. Summary 

GSEC failed to diligently supervise the handling of a broker-dealer client's 

commodity interest accounts carried by GSEC during the Relevant Period. 

GSEC was notified that a broker-dealer client had distributed a futures and 

securities account statement purporting to be issued by a non-existent GSEC affiliate and 

summarizing a single subaccount. Specifically, GSEC told the broker-dealer that the 

statement for only one subaccount created an inaccurate picture of the broker-dealer's 

overall performance and instructed the broker-dealer not to issue such statements. 

However, GSEC relied only on the representations and assurances of the broker-dealer 

and did not further investigate whether the broker-dealer previously or subsequently 

distributed other similar subaccount statements, including statements that did not reflect 

any negative capital balance. That negative capital balance could have resulted in the 

broker-dealer's members receiving amounts less than the balances of their trading 

subaccounts. 

GSEC also did not investigate the representation by the broker-dealer's lawyer 

that the broker-dealer "will not be engaged in any activities that involves [sic] the 

solicitation or trading of any commodity futures contract." That representation was made 

in a letter from the lawyer ("Lawyer's Letter") concerning whether the broker-dealer 

would have to register as a commodity pool operator ("CPO"). When that representation 

was made, GSEC knew that the broker-dealer had already opened a GSEC commodity 

futures trading account. Thereafter, GSEC also knew that the broker-dealer was actually 

trading commodity futures contracts. 

Finally, GSEC did not sufficiently investigate whether Class B members of the 

broker-dealer who traded commodity futures contracts were proprietary traders or 

customers of the broker-dealer. GSEC considered the broker-dealer's November 2009 

disclosure that pooled investment vehicles were a source of funds for the broker-dealer to 

be inconsistent with the broker-dealer's prior representations to GSEC. 

In December 2009, GSEC received the broker-dealer's draft disclosure statement, 

which disclosed that the broker-dealer had carried a negative capital balance of 

approximately $6.8 million since October 2009. During the Relevant Period, GSEC 

received approximately $1.5 million of gross fees and commissions for futures and 

securities transactions it executed and/or cleared on behalf of the broker-dealer. 

B. Respondent 

GSEC is a limited partnership registered as a futures commission merchant 

("FCM") with the Commission and as a broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission ("SEC"). GSEC is a wholly owned subsidiary of SLK LLC, which is a 

wholly owned subsidiary of GSTM LLC, which in tum is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation. GSEC's principal office is in 

2 
New York, New York. Among other things, GSEC executes and clears broker-dealer and 

customer transactions in futures, stock, and options in the United States and worldwide. 

C. Relevant Party 

During the Relevant Period, a third party limited liability company was registered 

as a broker-dealer with the SEC, was a member of a securities exchange that served as its 

designated self-regulatory organization ("DSRO"), and was registered to conduct 

business on that securities exchange as a market-maker (hereafter, the "Broker-Dealer"). 

GSEC became the Broker-Dealer's FCM and clearing broker in May 2007. 

D.!!£!! 

1. GSEC's relationship with the Broker-Dealer 

In Ma)! 2007, the Broker-Dealer became a GSEC client and a participant in 

GSEC's joint back office ("JBO") program.2 Documents submitted by the Broker-Dealer 

to GSEC as part of the new client on-boarding process included the Broker-Dealer's 

Form BD, which identified the Broker-Dealer as a SEC-registered broker-dealer and a 

securities exchange member, the Lawyer's Letter and the Broker-Dealer's Operating 

Agreement, which stated that the Broker-Dealer's purpose was "to engage in Securities 

Trading including electronic day trading oflisted and over-the-counter ('OTC') equities, 

options, and other derivatives products for the profit of [the Broker-Dealer] a member of 

the [securities exchange] and to engage in all lawful business ofa registered brokerdealer." 

The Operating Agreement provided that the Broker-Dealer would be comprised of 

three classes of members, namely Class A, B and C members. The agreement provided 

that "Class A Members shall share in the Net Operating Profits (Losses) of the Company 

and shall also be allocated a percentage of the Net Profits and in some cases Net Losses 

generated by the Class B Member's trading activities per the terms of the investment 

agreement particular to that Class B Member." The agreement further provided that 

"Class B Members shall be individual Trading Members, or active in some role of 

running or contributing to some element of the company's operation, of the Company and 

2 In a JBO arrangement, a broker-dealer without a clearing operation invests in a clearing 

broker-dealer and, because it then has an ownership interest in that broker-dealer and 

clears through it, the investing broker-dealer is eligible for favorable treatment under 

Federal Reserve Board Regulation T with respect to the margin requirements applicable 

to its proprietary securities trading. Being purely a securities market construct, the JBO 

structure does not provide a similar benefit in the futures markets. Here, the BrokerDealer became a Class C Limited Partner of GSEC for the purpose of trading securities 

by entering into a Joinder Agreement that incorporated GSEC's partnership agreement. 

In order to become a Class C Limited Partner, the Broker-Dealer contributed $10,000 to 

GSEC and agreed to be bound by the terms and provisions of GSEC's partnership 

agreement applicable to a Class C Limited Partner. GSEC and the Broker-Dealer 

executed a JBO Participants' Account Agreement on May 29, 2007. 

3 
shall be authorized to trade a particular trading account of the Company. Class B 

Members may also be investing Members, contributing capital to the Company and 

participate in profits and losses generated from their trading as well as the operations of 

the Company as outlined in their particular investing contract. Class B Members do not 

have voting rights." Finally, the agreement provided that "Class C Members shall be 

strictly investing Members of the Company with no trading rights or obligations. They 

shall be compensated per their investment agreement. Class C Members have no voting 

rights." 

The Operating Agreement stated that each Member's capital account would be an 

asset of the Broker-Dealer subject to all of the liabilities of the company and that each 

Member's liability would be limited to the capital that he or she contributed. The 

agreement also provided that each Member's initial capital contribution also would be 

locked up for one year. 

2. Futures and securities accounts and subaccounts are opened 

In or about May 2007, GSEC opened an account for the Broker-Dealer and 

assigned a Client I.D. number to the Broker-Dealer. Under this Client I.D. number, the 

Broker-Dealer requested that GSEC open securities and futures base accounts, with 

multiple subaccounts under those base accounts. According to GSEC, the Broker-Dealer 

represented to GSEC that these subaccounts were to be used for various purposes, 

including segregating trading strategies and separating trading performance by its 

authorized traders. 

GSEC calculated the Broker-Dealer's net liquidating value at the Client I.D. level 

by aggregating and netting together the assets and positions held in all of the subaccounts 

assigned to the client. This enabled GSEC to, among other things, monitor for 

compliance with the firm's minimum net liquidating value requirements and calculate 

appropriate margin requirements. 

3. GSEC did not investigate the Lawyer's Letter 

The Lawyer's Letter, which was addressed to Goldman Sachs and dated May 7, 

2007, stated that the Broker-Dealer "is [in] the process of establishing a joint back office 

arrangement with Goldman Sachs. In connection with such arrangement, I understand 

that Goldman Sachs is seeking certain assurances regarding [the Broker-Dealer's] 

exemption from registration as a commodity pool operator under the Commodity 

Exchange Act, as amended ('CEA')." 

The Lawyer's Letter further stated that "I understand that [the Broker-Dealer] will 

not be engaged in any activities that involves [sic] the solicitation or trading of any 

commodity futures contract except potentially as an introducing broker for the joint back 

office with Goldman Sachs and I further understand that if [the Broker-Dealer] intends to 

be compensated for any introductory efforts in such regard that it would first become 

registered as an introducing broker with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

and become a member firm of the National Futures Association." However, GSEC knew 

that, in April 2007, the Broker-Dealer had executed GSEC's commodity futures trading 

4 
account opening documents. Thereafter, GSEC also knew that the Broker-Dealer was 

actually trading commodity futures contracts. Despite this knowledge, GSEC did not 

investigate the apparent contradiction between the representations in the Lawyer's Letter 

and the Broker-Dealer's actions. 

4. GSEC did not sufficiently investigate whether Class B members were proprietary 

traders or customers of the Broker-Dealer 

The Broker-Dealer expressly agreed in the securities account agreement and the 

Client Access Agreement with GSEC not to use GSEC's name for any purpose without 

GSEC's prior approval. In one separate instance, GSEC instructed a principal of the 

Broker-Dealer to remove a reference to GSEC in the signature line of his email. 

GSEC did not obtain or review any trader's agreement between the Broker-Dealer 

and a Class B member who traded a Broker-Dealer subaccount, an agreement that 

included multiple references to GSEC and the Broker-Dealer's JBO arrangement at 

GSEC and that could have indicated whether Class B members were proprietary traders 

or customers of the Broker-Dealer. Additionally, GSEC did not sufficiently investigate 

the Broker-Dealer's compliance with its agreement to not use GSEC's name for any 

purpose without GSEC's prior approval. 

5. GSEC did not sufficiently investigate after receiving a copy of a subaccount 

statement the Broker-Dealer had created 

In August 2009, GSEC was contacted by the National Futures Association 

("NF A") after the NFA received an inquiry from an entity identifying itself as an investor 

in the Broker-Dealer. According to the NF A, the investor represented that it had received 

an account statement for the investor from the Broker-Dealer that stated "Fully disclosed 

JBO clearing with Goldman Professional Clearing Corp." GSEC was forwarded a copy 

of this statement. It was not created by GSEC and did not look like a GSEC account 

statement. Moreover, Goldman Professional Clearing Corp. is not an actual Goldman 

Sachs-related entity. An officer ofGSEC spoke with a principal of the Broker-Dealer 

who represented that the entity had requested that the Broker-Dealer provide it with a 

statement showing its individual trading performance and that the Broker-Dealer had 

complied with this request by creating the statement. GSEC told the Broker-Dealer that 

it should not create statements or reproduce any data for only one subaccount (or any 

subset of sub accounts) belonging to the Broker-Dealer because, among other reasons, it 

created an inaccurate picture of the Broker-Dealer's overall performance. GSEC also 

told the Broker-Dealer that it should not produce another document like this again. The 

Broker-Dealer assured GSEC that this was the first time that it had generated a statement 

such as this and that it would not generate similar statements for any other member. 

At that time, GSEC asked its client service representative for the Broker-Dealer to 

review its interactions with the Broker-Dealer to ensure that nothing deviated from 

standard GSEC procedures. In addition, GSEC immediately restricted the ability to trade 

the subaccount at issue and placed a compliance indicator in the firm's Funds Transfer 

5 
System for the subaccount, which prohibited the Broker-Dealer from moving any money 

out of the subaccount without Compliance approval. 

However, OSEC relied only on representations and assurances from the BrokerDealer and did not further investigate whether the Broker-Dealer had previously or 

subsequently created statements that referenced a non-existent OSEC affiliate or that 

could present an inaccurate picture of the value of particular subaccounts or the BrokerDealer's overall performance, including whether statements revealed a multi-million 

dollar negative capital balance that, in the event of liquidation or redemption, could result 

in Class members receiving amounts less than their current investments. 

6. Commodity pools invested in the Broker-Dealer 

In November 2009, OSEC was informed by the NF A that it had begun a review of 

two Broker-Dealer-affiliated entities that were registered with the NF A as CPOs. At or 

around the same time, the Broker-Dealer represented to OSEC that it had drafted 

disclosure letters to the investors in the funds managed by these Broker-Dealer-affiliated 

entities under the direction of, and with input from, the NF A. OSEC considered the 

Broker-Dealer's disclosure that pooled investment vehicles were a source offunds for the 

Broker-Dealer to be inconsistent with the Broker-Dealer's prior representations to OSEC 

and OSEC's understanding of the Broker-Dealer's account. 

7. Class B members' investments were at risk due to the Broker-Dealer's negative 

capital balance 

In December 2009, OSEC received the Broker-Dealer's draft disclosure statement 

that disclosed that the Broker-Dealer had carried a negative capital balance of 

approximately $6.8 million since October 2009. Specifically, the Broker-Dealer 

forwarded to OSEC a copy of an email between the DSRO and the Broker-Dealer's legal 

counsel. The email concerned the DSRO's examination of the Broker-Dealer's financial 

condition in late 2009 and attached a draft disclosure statement that the DSRO was 

requiring that the Broker-Dealer provide its Class B members prior to soliciting 

additional funds from those members. 

The draft disclosure statement provided that "Each Class member should 

understand that their investment is an asset of [the Broker-Dealer] and subject to all 

obligations of [the Broker-Dealer]. As such, there are no assets that are segregated." The 

draft further provided that "[ e ]ach Class member should understand that their investment 

is at risk on a proportionate basis to the total capital of [the Broker-Dealer]" and that "in 

the event of liquidation or redemption, the amount received may be less than their current 

investment, as reflected on their OSEC account statement. This would be the case, for 

example, if at the time of the liquidation or redemption [the Broker-Dealer] has a 

negative capital balance as it does today." The draft disclosure additionally advised that 

"[s]ince October 2009, [the Broker-Dealer] has carried negative capital balances of 

approximately $6.8 million, which resulted from debit balances caused by trading losses 

incurred by certain of its Class A and B members, some of which are [the BrokerDealer's] managing members or entities operated by [the Broker-Dealer's] managing 

6 
members." It provided, further, that "[t]o date, [the Broker-Dealer] has not made an 

effort to collect these negative capital balances," and "[t]herefore, any current or existing 

investment shall be subject to all obligations of [the Broker-Dealer]." 

8. Commissions and fees received by OSEC 

During the Relevant Period, OSEC received approximately $1.5 million of gross 

fees and commissions for futures and securities transactions it executed and/or cleared on 

behalf of the Broker-Dealer. 

9. The Broker-Dealer's account transferred 

By letter dated December 4,2009, OSEC provided the Broker-Dealer with 

"formal notice of OSEC' s decision to terminate its customer relationship with [the 

Broker-Dealer]." As of the end of March 2010, all of the Broker-Dealer's positions were 

transferred to another clearing firm. 

E. Legal Discussion 

OSEC Failed to Diligently Supervise its Employees 

Commission Regulation 166.3 provides that every Commission registrant (except 

Associated Persons ("APs") who have no supervisory duties) must diligently supervise 

the handling of all commodity interest accounts carried, operated, advised or introduced 

by the registrant and all other activities of its partners, employees and agents relating to 

its business as a Commission registrant. Commission Regulation 166.3 imposes on 

registrants an affirmative duty to supervise their partners, employees and agents 

diligently by establishing, implementing and executing an adequate supervisory structure 

and compliance programs. "The duty to supervise ... include[ s] the broader goals of 

detection and deterrence of possible wrongdoing by [a registrant's] agents." Lobb v. J. T. 

McKerr & Co., [1987-1990 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 24,568 at 

33,444 (CFTC Dec. 14, 1989). "In appropriate circumstances, a showing that the 

registrant lacks an adequate supervisory system can be sufficient to establish a breach of 

duty under Rule 166.3." See In re Thomas W. Collins, [1996-1998 Transfer Binder] 

Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 27,194 (CFTC Dec. 10, 1997). A violation under 

Commission Regulation 166.3 is an independent violation for which no underlying 

violation is necessary. Id. at 45,744. 

OSEC did not investigate the Lawyer's Letter, which stated that the BrokerDealer "will not be engaged in any activities that involves [sic] the solicitation or trading 

of any commodity futures contract," even though OSEC knew that the Broker-Dealer had 

already opened a futures account at OSEC when the representation was made. 

Thereafter, OSEC also knew that the broker-dealer was actually trading commodity 

futures contracts. Additionally, OSEC did not sufficiently investigate whether Class B 

members were proprietary traders or customers of the Broker-Dealer. OSEC considered 

the Broker-Dealer's November 2009 disclosure that pooled investment vehicles were a 

source of funds for the Broker-Dealer to be inconsistent with the Broker-Dealer's prior 

representations to OSEC. 

7 
Finally, OSEC relied only on representations and assurances from the BrokerDealer, and did not further investigate whether the Broker-Dealer had previously or 

subsequently created statements that referenced a non-existent OSEC affiliate or that 

could present an inaccurate picture of the value of particular subaccounts or the BrokerDealer's overall performance. 

For these reasons, OSEC, a registered FCM, failed to diligently supervise the 

handling by its employees of the Broker-Dealer's commodity interest accounts carried by 

OSEC, in violation of Commission Regulation 166.3. In re GNP, [1990-1992 Transfer 

Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 25,360 at 39,219 (CFTC Aug. 11, 1992), affd sub 

nom., Monieson v. CFTC, 996 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1993) (discussion of "the importance of 

a line supervisor's duty to investigate questionable activity after that activity is brought to 

the supervisor's attention"). 

In settling this matter, the Commission has taken into account the cooperation of 

OSEC and the corrective action OSEC undertook after learning of the CFTC's 

investigation of the above-described activity. 

IV. 

FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS 

Based upon the foregoing, the Commission finds that OSEC violated Commission 

Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2011). 

V. 

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT 

OSEC has submitted its Offer in which it, without admitting or denying the 

findings herein: 

A. Acknowledges receipt of service of this Order; 

B. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to all matters set forth in 

this Order and for any action or proceeding brought or authorized by the 

Commission based on violation of or enforcement of this Order; 

C. Waives the filing and service ofa complaint and notice of hearing; a hearing; all 

post-hearing procedures; judicial review by any court; any and all objections to 

the participation by any member of the Commission's staffin consideration of the 

Offer; any and all claims that OSEC may possess under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, §§ 201-253, 

110 Stat. 847, 857-868 (1996), as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-28, § 8302, 121 

Stat. 112, 204-205 (2007), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; any and all 

claims that OSEC may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 

504 (2006) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2006), and Part 148 of the Commission's 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. §§ 148.1, et seq. (2011), relating to, or arising from, this 

proceeding; and any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this 

8 
proceeding or the entry in this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary 

penalty or any other relief; 

D. Stipulates that the record upon which this Order is entered shall consist solely of 

the findings contained in this Order to which OSEC has consented in its Offer; 

and 

E. Consents, solely on the basis of the Ojfor, to entry of this Order that: 

1. makes findings by the Commission that OSEC violated Commission 

Regulation 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2011); 

2. orders OSEC to cease and desist from violating Commission Regulation 

166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 (2011); 

3. orders OSEC to pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of five million, 

five hundred thousand dollars ($5.5 million); and 

4. orders OSEC and its successors and assigns to comply with the 

undertakings consented to in its Offer and set forth below in Part VII of 

this Order. 

Upon consideration, the Commission has determined to accept the Respondent's Ojfor. 

VI. 

GSEC'S REPRESENTATIONS 

In its Ojfor, OSEC represents that it has made the following changes in light of 

the events discussed in this Order: 

1. OSEC has conducted a thorough review of then-current accounts of its 

proprietary trading, SEC-registered broker-dealer clients that trade futures 

with respect to whether their subaccounts were properly treated as 

proprietary accounts or whether such clients were being operated by 

unregistered CPOs. In connection with its review, OSEC requested 

additional documents from certain of these clients, as appropriate, such as 

updated Form BDs and organizational documents. 

2. OSEC has also directed certain clients to have their CPOs obtain the 

proper registrations or file Notices of Exemption from such registrations. 

In certain instances, where OSEC had concerns whether certain 

subaccounts could be properly treated as proprietary accounts, OSEC 

directed clients either to restructure themselves or else to close their 

accounts at OSEe. 

3. OSEC has developed additional policies and procedures that require 

enhanced due diligence during the on-boarding of accounts of proprietary 

trading, SEC-registered broker-dealers that trade futures, including review 

of available information to corroborate that a prospective proprietary 

9 
trading broker-dealer client is registered with or appropriately not 

registered with the Commission. 

4. OSEC has incorporated these enhanced policies and procedures into its 

initial and ongoing training of APs, compliance staff and other employees 

involved in the account opening process of these accounts, and will 

incorporate into its training any future guidance relating to proprietary 

trader and CPO registration issues provided by the Commission or the 

NFA. 

VII. 

ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

A. OSEC shall cease and desist from violating Commission Regulation 166.3; 

B. GSEC shall pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of five million, five 

hundred thousand dollars ($5.5 million) within ten (10) days of the date of entry 

of this Order (the "CMP Obligation"). Should GSEC not satisfy its CMP 

Obligation within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order, post judgment 

interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of entry of this 

Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on the 

date of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. OSEC shall pay its 

CMP Obligation by making electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, 

certified check, bank cashier's check, or bank money order. If payment is to be 

made by other than electronic funds transfer, the payment shall be made payable 

to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and sent to the address below: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

ATTN: Accounts Receivables-AMZ-340 

E-mail Box: 9-AMC-AMZ-AR-CFTC 

DOTIFAAIMMAC 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Telephone: 405-954-5644 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, GSEC shall contact Linda 

Zurhorst or her successor at the above address to receive payment instructions and 

shall fully comply with those instructions. GSEC shall accompany payment of its 

CMP Obligation with a cover letter that identifies GSEC and the name and docket 

number of this proceeding. GSEC shall simultaneously transmit copies of the 

cover letter and the form of payment to (1) the Director, Division of Enforcement, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21 5t 

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581 and (2) the Chief, Office of Cooperative 

Enforcement, Division of Enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, at the same address; 

10 
C. OSEC shall comply with its respective undertakings set forth in its Offer: 

1. Disgorgement: OSEC shall pay disgorgement in the amount of one 

million, five hundred thousand dollars ($1.5 million) within ten (10) days 

of the date of entry of this Order (the "Disgorgement 

Obligation"). Should OSEC not satisfy its Disgorgement Obligation 

within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order, post judgment 

interest shall accrue on the Disgorgement Obligation beginning on the date 

of entry of this Order and shall be detennined by using the Treasury Bill 

rate prevailing on the date of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1961. OSEC shall pay its Disgorgement Obligation by making electronic 

funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified check, bank cashier's 

check, or bank money order. If payment is to be made by other than 

electronic funds transfer, the payment shall be made payable to the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and sent to the address below: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

ATTN: Accounts Receivables- AMZ-340 

E-mail Box: 9-AMC-AMZ-AR-CFTC 

DOTIF AAlMMAC 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Telephone: 405-954-5644 

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, OSEC shall contact 

Linda Zurhorst or her successor at the above address to receive payment 

instructions and shall fully comply with those instructions. OSEC shall 

accompany payment of its Disgorgement Obligation with a cover letter 

that identifies OSEC and the name and docket number of this proceeding. 

OSEC shall simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the 

fonn of payment to (1) the Director, Division of Enforcement, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21 st Street, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581 and (2) the Chief, Office of Cooperative 

Enforcement, Division of Enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, at the same address. 

2. Public Statements: OSEC agrees that neither it nor any of its successors, 

assigns, employees and/or agents 'under its authority or control shall take 

any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, 

any findings or conclusions in this Order, or creating, or tending to create, 

the impression that this Order is without a factual basis; provided, 

however, that nothing in this provision shall affect OSEC's: (i) testimonial 

obligations; or (ii) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to 

which the Commission is not a party. OSEC and its successors and 

assigns shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of their 

II 
employees and/or agents under their authority or control understand and 

comply with this undertaking. 

3. Future Cooperation with the Commission: GSEC agrees that it will 

cooperate fully and expeditiously with the Commission and its staff, 

including the Division, with regard to this Order, and in any investigation, 

civil litigation, or administrative matter brought by the Commission 

related to the subject matter of this proceeding or any current or future 

investigation related thereto. As part of such cooperation with the 

Commission, GSEC agrees to: 

a. comply fully, promptly, completely, and truthfully, subject 

to any legally recognized privilege, with any inquiries or 

requests for information and documents; 

b. provide authentication of documents and other evidentiary 

material; and 

c. use its best efforts to produce any current (as of the time of 

the request) officer, director, employee, or agent of GSEC, 

regardless of the individual's location and at such location 

that minimizes Commission travel expenditures, to provide 

assistance at any trial, proceeding, or Commission 

investigation related to the subject matter of this 

proceeding, including but not limited to, requests for 

testimony, depositions, and lor interviews, and to 

encourage them to testify completely and truthfully in any 

such proceeding, trial, or investigation. 

The provisions of this Order shall be effective as of this date. 

Dated: March 13,2012 

By the Commission (Commissioners SOMMERS, 

CHILTON, O'MALIA and WETJEN) 

(Chairman GENSLER not participating). 

David A. Stawick 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

12