Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: INTERNATIO (WOOL), INC., AND ALBERT T. ALADJEM 

DOCKET NUMBER: 109 

DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1962 

DOCUMENT TYPE: COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Internatio (Wool), Inc., and Albert T. Aladjem, Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 109 

Complaint and Notice of Hearing under Section 6(b) of the Commodity Exchange 

Act 

There is reason to believe that the respondents, Internatio (Wool), Inc., and 

Albert T. Aladjem, attempted to manipulate and did manipulate the price of a 

commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of a board of trade in 

violation of sections 6(b) and 9 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 9 

and 13), and in accordance with the provisions of § 6(b) of the said Act (7 

U.S.C. § 9) this complaint and notice of hearing is issued stating the charges 

against the respondents as follows: 

I 

The respondent Internatio (Wool), Inc., hereinafter sometimes referred to as 

the respondent corporation, is a Massachusetts corporation, with offices and a 

place of business at 263 Summer Street, Boston, Massachusetts. The respondent 

corporation is now and was at all times material to this complaint engaged in 

the wool merchandising business. At all such times the respondent corporation 

enjoyed membership trading privileges on the Wool Associates of the New York 

Cotton Exchange, Inc., by virtue of the membership on the exchange of the 

respondent Albert T. Aladjem. 

II 

The respondent Albert T. Aladjem, an individual, whose office address is the 

same as that of the respondent corporation, is now and was at all times material 

to this complaint President and Treasurer of the respondent corporation, and a 

member of the Wool Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc. 

III 

The Wool Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., hereinafter 

sometimes referred to as the exchange, is now and was at all times material to 

this complaint a board of trade duly designated as a contract market under the 

Commodity Exchange Act. 

IV 

The transactions hereinafter described were carried out under the direction 

and supervision and by means of the acts of the respondent Albert T. Aladjem in 

his capacity as an officer of the respondent corporation. 

V 

The futures transactions referred to in this complaint relate to the May 1962 

wool future on the Wool Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc. A wool 

futures contract on the exchange is a contract for the grease equivalent of 
Page 2 

6,000 pounds (clean weight) of wool. The last day for trading in the May 1962 

wool future on the exchange was May 23, 1962, and that was also the last day on 

which notice could be given of intention to deliver wool in satisfaction of 

positions in such future. In order to give notice of intention to deliver wool 

in satisfaction of such futures positions, the person making delivery was 

required to have the amount of wool referred to in the delivery notice, and such 

wool must have been inspected and certificated in accordance with the rules of 

the exchange and be located in a warehouse (in the Greater Boston, 

Massachusetts, area) approved by the exchange for delivery. 

VI 

At the close of business on May 22, 1962, the day prior to the last day for 

trading in the May 1962 wool future on the exchange, the respondent corporation 

held on the exchange a net long position in the May 1962 wool future in the 

amount of 77 contracts, representing 59.2% of the total long open interest (130 

contracts) in such future on the exchange. 

VII 

At the close of business on May 22, 1962, the total stocks of certificated 

wool were sufficient to liquidate 203 futures contracts by delivery. The 

respondent corporation owned or controlled an amount of such certificated wool 

equivalent to 188 1/2 contracts, leaving an amount of certificated wool not 

owned or controlled by the respondent corporation sufficient to liquidate 14 

futures contracts by delivery. However, of this amount of certificated wool not 

owned or controlled by the respondent corporation, an amount sufficient to 

liquidate 11 contracts had been allocated to fulfill outstanding notices of 

delivery which had been received by the respondent corporation, assuring that 

the 

respondent corporation would own such wool before the expiration of the delivery 

period, and rendering it unavailable to other persons for delivery. 

VIII 

At the close of business on May 22, 1962, persons short 63 May 1962 wool 

futures contracts could satisfy their contracts only by entering into futures 

transactions with the respondent corporation or by purchasing certificated wool 

from the respondent corporation. 

IX 

On May 22, 1962, the price of the May 1962 wool future on the exchange ranged 

from 127.5 cents per pound to 128.9 cents per pound, and closed at 128.6 cents 

per pound. On May 23, 1962, the last day for trading in the May 1962 wool 

future, the price of the future ranged from 129.8 cents per pound to 133.0 cents 

per pound, and closed at 133.0 cents per pound. 

X 

On May 23, 1962, the respondent corporation sold 66 contracts on the exchange 

at prices ranging from 131.0 cents per pound to 133.0 cents per pound. The 

respondent corporation's sales were made pursuant to orders which set forth the 

price limits below which such futures could not be sold. 

XI 

With knowledge of the fact that there was an insufficient supply of 

certificated wool not owned or controlled by the respondent corporation to 

satisfy the long futures contracts held by the respondent corporation, on May 

23, 1962, the respondent Albert T. Aladjem demanded 
Page 3 

and received fixed and arbitrary prices which were in excess of the true market 

value of May 1962 wool futures, thereby causing prices of such future which were 

not justified by supply and demand. By reason thereof, the respondents, 

Internatio (Wool), Inc., and Albert T. Aladjem, attempted to manipulate and did 

in fact manipulate the price of a commodity for future delivery on or subject to 

the rules of a board of trade, in willful violation of sections 6(b) and 9 of 

the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13). 

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

served upon the said respondents. The respondents will have twenty (20) days 

after the receipt of this notice of hearing in which to file with the Hearing 

Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington 25, D. C., an answer 

with an original and five 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 

respondents are hereby notified that unless hearing is waived, either expressly 

or by failure to file an answer, or by filing an answer in which all of the 

material allegations of fact contained in the complaint are admitted and a 

hearing is not requested, a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m., local time, on 

the 11th day of December, 1962, in Boston, Massachusetts, at a place therein to 

be specified later, before a referee 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 order should not be made directing that all contract markets 

refuse all trading privileges to the respondents for such period of time as may 

be determined. 

It is ordered that this complaint and notice of hearing be served on the 

respondents at least twenty (20) days prior to the date set for hearing. 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 

9th day of November, 1962 

/s/ John P. Duncan, Jr. 

John P. Duncan, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 4