1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,

EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION,

PLAINTIFF, 

v.

IGOR B. OYSTACHER , and 3 RED 

TRADING LLC, 

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 15-cv-09196 

Hon. Amy J. St. Eve 

CONSENT ORDER OF PERMANENT

INJUNCTION, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

AGAINST IGOR B. OYSTACHER AND 3 RED TRADING LLC

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“Commission” or “CFTC”) filed its Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and 

Civil Monetary Penalties under the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) against Igor B. 

Oystacher (“Oystacher”) and 3 Red Trading LLC (“3 Red”) (collectively “Defendants”) (Dkt. 

#1) for violations of Sections 4c(a)(5)(C) and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C) and § 9(1) 

(2012) and CFTC Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 (2015). 

On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #20). The 

Court conducted a nine-day preliminary injunction hearing on April 8, 25- 29, May 4, 6 and May 12, 

2016. At the contested hearing, Plaintiff introduced evidence that supported the allegations of the 

Complaint, that the Defendants violated the Act while trading: (1) the Commodity Exchange Inc.’s 

(“COMEX”) March 2012 copper futures contract (“copper”) on December 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:16033
2

19-20, 2011; (2) the New York Mercantile Exchange’s (“NYMEX”) spot crude oil futures 

contract (“crude oil”) on May 7, 9-11, 2012; (3) the NYMEX’s spot month natural gas contract 

(“natural gas”) on November 30 and December 3-4, 2012; (4) the CBOE Futures Exchange’s 

(“CFE”) March 2013 volatility index futures contract (“VIX”) on February 19-22, 25-28, and 

March 1, 4-5, 2013, and the April 2013 VIX contract on March 6, 7, 11, 12, 18 and 21, 2013; and

(5) the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s (“CME”) spot month E-Mini S&P 500 futures contract 

(“E-Mini S&P 500”) on June 11-12, 2013, December 16-19, 2013, and January 6-10, 2014

(collectively “the relevant markets” and “the relevant period”). The Defendants introduced 

evidence challenging the allegations in the Complaint. 

On July 12, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ordered that 

Defendants maintain certain trading surveillance reports and compliance tools across all markets 

Defendants trade, required 3 Red’s Chief Compliance Officer to file periodic affidavits, and ordered 

that Oystacher limit his trading to the E-Mini S&P 500 and CME’s Ten Year T-Note Futures 

Contracts markets except with the Court’s permission. (Dkt. #195) 

II. CONSENTS AND AGREEMENTS

To effect settlement of all charges alleged in the Complaint against Defendants without a 

trial on the merits or any further judicial proceedings, Defendants:

1. Consent to the entry of this Consent Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Monetary 

Penalty and Other Equitable Relief Against Defendants (“Consent Order”);

2. Affirm that they have read and agreed to this Consent Order voluntarily, and that no 

promise, other than as specifically contained herein, or threat, has been made by the Commission or 

any member, officer, agent or representative thereof, or by any other person, to induce consent to 

this Consent Order;

3. Acknowledge service upon them of the summons and Complaint;

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:16034
3

4. Admit the jurisdiction of this Court over them and the subject matter of this action 

pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012);

5. Admit the jurisdiction of the Commission over the conduct and transactions at issue in 

this action pursuant to the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012);

6. Admit that venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, as 

amended, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) (2012);

7. Waive:

(a) Any and all claims that they may possess under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2012), and/or 

the rules promulgated by the Commission in conformity therewith, Part 

148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. §§ 148.1 et seq. (2014), relating to, or 

arising from, this action;

(b) Any and all claims that they 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 action;

(c) Any claim of Double Jeopardy based upon the institution of this action or 

the entry in this action of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or 

any other relief, including this Consent Order; and

(d) Any and all rights of appeal from this action, including but not limited to: 

the Court’s rulings related to the Preliminary Injunction and Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings, as well as this Consent Order;

8. Consent to the continued jurisdiction of this Court over them for the purpose of 

implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of the Consent Order and for any other 

purpose relevant to this action, even if Defendants now or in the future reside outside the 

jurisdiction of this Court; 

9. Agree that they will not oppose enforcement of this Consent Order by alleging that it 

fails to comply with Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and waive any objection 

based thereon;

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:16035
4

10. Agree that neither they nor any of their agents or employees under their authority or 

control shall take any action or make any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any 

allegation in the Complaint or the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, or 

creating or tending to create the impression that the Complaint and/or this Consent Order is without 

a factual basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect their: (a) testimonial 

obligations, or (b) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to which the Commission is not 

a party. Defendants shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that their agents and employees 

under their authority or control understand and comply with this agreement;

11. Agree to provide immediate notice to this Court and the Commission by certified mail, 

in the manner required by paragraph 46 of Part VI of this Consent Order, of any bankruptcy 

proceeding filed by, on behalf of, or against any of them, whether inside or outside the United 

States; 

12. Agree that no provision of this Consent Order shall in any way limit or impair the ability 

of any other person or entity to seek any legal or equitable remedy against Defendants in any other 

proceeding;

13. By consenting to the entry of this Consent Order, Defendants neither admit nor deny the 

allegations of the Complaint, the Findings of Fact, and the Conclusions of Law in this Consent 

Order, except as to jurisdiction and venue, which they admit. Further, Defendants agree and intend 

that the allegations contained in the Complaint and all of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law contained in this Consent Order shall be taken as true and correct and be given preclusive 

effect, without further proof, in the course of:(a) any proceeding pursuant to Section 8a of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 12a (2012), and/or Part 3 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 et seq. (2014); and/or 

(b) any proceeding to enforce the terms of this Consent Order. Defendants do not consent to the 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:16036
5

use of this Consent Order, or the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this Consent Order, as 

the sole basis for any other proceeding brought by the Commission. 

14. Consent to imposition of the undertakings and payment of civil monetary penalties, in

the amounts specified below. 

III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that there is good cause for the entry 

of this Consent Order and that there is no just reason for delay. The Court therefore directs the 

entry of the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, permanent injunction, civil 

monetary penalty and equitable relief pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2012), 

as set forth herein. 

THE PARTIES AGREE AND THE COURT HEREBY FINDS:

A. Findings of Fact 

1. The Parties

15. Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal

regulatory agency charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the Act, as amended, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26 (2012), and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq.

(2015). 

16. Defendant 3 Red Trading LLC is a proprietary trading firm that employs both manual

traders – where humans make trading decisions – and algorithmic traders – where computer 

algorithms make trading decisions. It has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

17. Defendant Igor Oystacher serves as 3 Red’s President, Chief Executive Officer and

principal trader. During the relevant time period, he was a principal and majority owner of 3 Red. 

He has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. Defendant Oystacher is a 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:16037
6

manual trader. As such, he manually executes trades based on his own observations, assisted with 

trading tools. During the relevant period, he traded futures contracts on copper, crude oil, natural 

gas, VIX, and E-Mini S&P 500, on designated contract markets or “exchanges,” and was the largest 

or among the largest traders in the respective contracts (as measured by the number of contracts 

traded) during the relevant period.

2. Defendants’ Trading

18. The trading on electronic trading platforms transmits market participant orders to a 

matching engine that aggregates the orders from across the market in each contract, then matches 

the orders to buy with orders to sell at the same price, generally following a “first-in, first-out” 

priority. Moreover, a relationship also exists between the price of an order and its execution. A 

price either can be “aggressive” or “passive” depending on where the price is located compared to 

the current “bid-ask spread” between the highest priced bid to buy and the lowest price offer (or 

“ask”) to sell. A passive order cannot be immediately matched upon receipt by the exchange. 

Generally, the higher the limit price on a buy order, the more aggressive it is, and the lower the 

limit price on a sell order, the more aggressive it is.

19. The trading platform also distributes information back to market participants, such as 

order matches and executions, cancellations, changes in quantities, and changes in prices. From the 

perspective of market participants trading on the electronic platform, only the number of orders at 

various price levels and the number of contracts at each price level are visible; the identity of the 

originating market participant for each order is not. Market participants view this data through the 

market data feed and incorporate trading strategies based, in part, on that information. One factor 

that at least some market participants consider is “book pressure”, which can indicate whether there 

exists more buying or selling interest in the market for a particular product, using the number of 

orders at each price level in the order book on both the buy and sell sides.

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:16038
7

20. Oystacher and 3 Red manually traded these futures markets, using a commercially 

available trading platform, which included a commonly-used function designed to prevent a trader’s 

own orders from matching with one another. In the industry, this type of software is known as a 

“wash blocker” and is often offered by the exchanges themselves. Oystacher used this functionality 

to place certain of the orders charged in the Complaint, which automatically and almost 

simultaneously cancelled existing orders on the opposite side of the market (that would have 

matched with the new orders). 

21. Oystacher and 3 Red engaged in trading across all relevant markets during the relevant 

period, which included placing orders on both the buy and sell sides of the market. On one side, 

Oystacher placed one or more orders as passive orders at or near the best bid or offer price, behind 

existing orders placed by other market participants. These orders – characterized in the complaint 

as “cancel-side” or “spoof” orders –would not be filled until the existing orders at those price levels 

were filled or cancelled first. However, the size and number of the cancel-side orders created an

impression of market depth and book pressure on that side of the market. Subsequently, on the 

other side of the market, Oystacher placed new orders – characterized in the complaint as “the trade 

side” or “flip” order(s) – which as a result of the wash blocker functionality would simultaneously 

(within 5 milliseconds) cancel any opposite order(s) at the same or better price that then traded 

against market participants who had placed orders on the same side as the cancel-side orders.

22. Oystacher’s trading has triggered inquiries or investigations in every exchange on 

which he has traded. Numerous exchanges have sanctioned Oystacher and 3 Red for their improper 

trading activities. Oystacher was aware of all of these investigations.

23. Oystacher’s particular quantities of cancel and trade-side order entries illustrate a 

number of characteristics across the markets charged in the Complaint. Specifically, Oystacher: 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:16039
8

1) entered more cancel-side orders than all other market participants engaged in flip orders; 

2) cancelled larger portions of his total entered orders upon flipping as compared to all other 

participants in each relevant market; 3) ordered a higher number of cancel-side contracts one 

second before the impending flip event as compared to earlier seconds – a phenomenon described 

as accelerating his cancel-side order entries the closer he got to his flip event; 4) created a cancelside order book imbalance both in the overall market and within his own trading by making cancelside order entries that were much larger in magnitude than the market’s total number of orders 

already resting in the limit order book at the event price or better at the time he entered them; and 

5) entered more trade-side orders after flip events than during non-flip transactions. 

24. In addition, Oystacher made use of so-called “iceberg” or “hidden-quantity” orders 

offered by certain designated contract markets – i.e., copper, crude oil, natural gas, and E-Mini S&P 

500 on the CME, but not the VIX on the CFE – whose order quantities (i.e., number of contracts) 

are only partially visible in the order book to other market participants. Oystacher used the iceberg 

function at a higher rate in his trade-side orders compared to his cancel-side orders in the markets 

that allowed such orders. As such, Oystacher’s trade-side orders displayed a lower quantity of their 

contracts compared to his non-flip orders’ displayed quantities.

25. As described in the Complaint, the following is one example of how Oystacher and 3 

Red employed a manipulative or deceptive spoofing strategy on each of the relevant dates to buy or 

sell futures contracts in quantities and/or at price levels that would have otherwise not been 

available to them in the market, absent the conduct. 

26. At 8:02:34.360 a.m. on November 30, 2012, Defendants were short 10 futures contracts 

in natural gas with additional pending orders to sell 182 contracts. Beginning at 8:02:34.576 a.m., 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:16040
9

Defendants proceeded to place seven visible orders to sell a total of 103 contracts behind other 

resting orders at the existing best offer price of $3.671, as illustrated below:

State of the Visible Order Book 

Prior to Defendants’ Orders

08:02:34.360

Defendants’ Order Entry Activity

08:02:34.576 – 08:02:34.918

ORDER BOOK OYSTACHER

Price Buy 

Orders

Buy 

Contracts

Sell 

Orders

Sell 

Contracts

Buy 

Orders

Buy 

Contracts

Sell 

Orders

Sell 

Contracts

3.675 29 135

3.674 20 35

3.673 17 38

3.672 18 32

3.671 5 9 7 103

3.670 8 18

3.669 18 26

3.668 19 33

3.667 22 32

3.666 15 24

TOTALS: 82 133 89 249 7 103

27. Defendants’ seven cancel-side orders increased the visible market depth (measured in 

contracts offered) at the best offer price by more than 1100% compared to what was visible to 

market participants at that same price before Defendants placed these cancel-side orders.

28. After Defendants’ cancel-side orders appeared in the order book, other market 

participants placed orders to sell, and a new best sell/offer price of $3.670 was established, as 

shown below: 

State of the Visible Order Book 

After Defendants’ Orders

08:02:34.951

ORDER BOOK

Price Buy 

Orders

Buy 

Contracts

Sell 

Orders

Sell 

Contracts

3.674 19 34

3.673 17 32

3.672 21 41

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:16041
10

3.671 16 119

3.670 3 3

3.669 9 21

3.668 23 39

3.667 20 30

3.666 17 25

3.665 13 28

TOTALS: 82 143 76 229

29. The market for natural gas futures at 8:02:35.281 a.m., immediately before Defendants 

canceled their cancel-side orders, looked as follows:

State of the Visible Order Book 

Prior to Defendants’ Cancels

08:02:35.281

ORDER BOOK

Price Buy 

Orders

Buy 

Contracts

Sell 

Orders

Sell 

Contracts

3.674 20 35

3.673 19 34

3.672 21 41

3.671 18 121

3.670 4 4

3.669 9 21

3.668 23 39

3.667 20 30

3.666 17 25

3.665 13 28

TOTALS: 82 143 82 235

30. At 8:02:35.304 a.m., market data reflects that Defendants canceled their seven cancelside orders at $3.671, although they had been pending less than 750 milliseconds, and none had 

resulted in any fills. Market data indicates that over the next three milliseconds, Defendants 

aggressively “flipped” and crossed the spread by placing two buy orders for a total of 50 contracts 

at a price of $3.671. Because Defendants’ flip orders to buy would have been matched against their 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:16042
11

pending cancel-side orders to sell at the same price, the wash blocker function in their trading 

platform automatically canceled these cancel-side orders. In this example, Defendants were able to 

almost simultaneously place new orders and cancel existing opposite orders at the same or better 

price with a single button push.

31. Over the next ten seconds, Defendants’ aggressive flip orders to buy 50 contracts were 

filled with 39 contracts at $3.671 and 4 contracts at 3.670. About a second after the last fill, 

Oystacher and 3 Red canceled the remaining portion of one of the flip buy orders. 

32. The following table illustrates Defendants’ cancel and flip activity as well as the state of 

the Order Book at 08:02:35.309 a.m., after Defendants’ flip orders had been mostly filled and 

subsequently canceled:

State of the Visible Order Book 

After Defendants’ Cancel & Flip

08:02:35.309

Defendants’ Cancel & Flip Activity

08:02:35.304 – 08:02:35.307

ORDER BOOK OYSTACHER

Price Buy 

Orders

Buy 

Contracts

Sell 

Orders

Sell 

Contracts

Buy 

Orders

Buy 

Contracts

Sell 

Orders

Sell 

Contracts

3.676 19 77

3.675 26 132

3.674 20 35

3.673 18 33

3.672 18 38

3.671 1 1 2 50 7 103

3.670 3 4

3.669 15 28

3.668 23 39

3.667 20 30

TOTALS: 62 102 101 315 2 50

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:16043
12

33. After Defendants’ flip orders were mostly filled and then partially canceled, the new

lowest sell price was $3.672. In this instance, Defendants purchased 43 contracts, most at a price 

not available before Defendants entered their cancel-side orders.

B. Conclusions of Law

1. Jurisdiction and Venue

34. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

§ 13a-1 (2012), which provides that whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person has

engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any 

provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order promulgated thereunder, the Commission may 

bring an action in the proper district court of the United States against such person to enjoin such 

act or practice, or to enforce compliance with the Act, or any rule, regulation or order thereunder.

35. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a1(e) (2012), because Defendants resided in this jurisdiction at the time of the acts and practices in 

violation of the Act, Defendants transacted business in this District, and certain transactions, acts, 

and practices alleged in the Complaint and described herein, occurred, are occurring, and/or are 

about to occur within this District.

2. Violations of Sections 4c and 6(c)(1) and Regulation 180.1 of the

Commodity Exchange Act (Spoofing and Employment of a

Manipulative or Deceptive Device)

36. Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C) (2012), makes it unlawful for any

person to engage in trading or conduct on a registered entity that “is of the character of or 

commonly known to the trade as ‘spoofing’ (bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or 

offer before execution).” 

37. Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), and Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R.

§ 180.1 (2015), make it unlawful for any person to intentionally or recklessly employ, or attempt to

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:16044
13

use or employ any manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with 

commodity futures. 

38. By the conduct described in the Complaint and in paragraphs 18 through 33 above,

Defendants entered bids or offers with the intent to cancel the bids or offers before execution in 

violation of Section 4c(a)(5)(C), 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C). 

39. By the conduct described in the Complaint and in paragraphs 18 through 33 above,

Defendants intentionally or recklessly used or employed, or attempted to use or employ, a

manipulative device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with contracts for future delivery 

on or subject to the rules of a registered entity in violation of Section 6(c)(1)(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 9(1)(a) and CFTC Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1.

40. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is a reasonable likelihood that the

Defendants will continue to engage in the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint and in similar 

acts and practices in violation of the Act and Regulations.

IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

41. Based upon and in connection with the foregoing conduct, pursuant to Section 6c of the

CEA, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1: 

(a) Defendants are permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from 

placing passive displayed order(s) at the best price or near the best price 

on one side of the market behind existing orders in such size and/or 

number that it creates a false or misleading impression of market depth 

and/or book pressure and then subsequently cancelling those orders 

simultaneously or nearly simultaneously with the entry of an order at the 

same or better price on the opposite side of the market in violation of 

Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C) (2012). 

(b) Defendants are permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited from 

trading in a way that creates a false or misleading impression of market 

depth and/or book pressure in violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 9(1) (2012), or Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. § 180.1 (2015). 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:16045
14

(c) For a period of three (3) years commencing from the date of the entry of 

this Consent Order, James G. Lundy is hereby appointed as an 

independent monitor (the “Monitor”). The Monitor will assess and 

monitor 3 Red’s and Oystacher’s trading (through 3 Red or any accounts 

Oystacher owns or controls) for the purpose of identifying violations of 

Sections 4c(a)(5)(C) and 6(c)(1)of the Act and/or Regulation 180.1 in 

accordance with a Monitoring Agreement consented to and approved by 3 

Red and the CFTC. 

(d) For a period of eighteen months commencing from the date of the entry of 

this Consent Order: 

i. Defendants must employ: (a) the “Dynamic Max Quantity at Price

Tool;” and (b) the “Delayed Replace for Cancel/Replace, as

modified, with respect to all of Oystacher’s futures trading on U.S.

exchanges;

ii. 3 Red’s Chief Compliance Officer must file a sworn affidavit on

the first of every month affirming that these trading restrictions and

compliance tools remain in place with respect to Oystacher’s

trading and that Oystacher has not violated any of them.

V. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY 

42. Defendants shall pay, jointly and severally, a civil monetary penalty in the amount of

two-million, five-hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) (the “CMP Obligations”), plus postjudgment interest, within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Order. If the CMP Obligation is 

not paid in full within ten (10) days of the date of the entry of this Consent Order, then post –

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

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

entry of this Consent Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2012). 

43. Defendants shall pay their CMP Obligations by electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal

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

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

Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address below: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:16046
15

Division of Enforcement

ATTN: Accounts Receivables

DOT/FAA/MMAC/AMZ-341

CFTC/CPSC/SEC

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

Telephone: (405) 954-7262

nikki.gibson@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendants shall contact Nikki Gibson or her 

successor at the address above to receive payment instructions and shall fully comply with those 

instructions. Defendants shall accompany payment of the CMP Obligation with a cover letter 

that identifies Defendants and the name and docket number of this proceeding. Defendants shall 

simultaneously transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial 

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

NW, Washington, D.C. 20581.

44. Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the Commission of any partial payment of 

Defendants’ CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of their obligations to make further 

payments pursuant to this Order, or a waiver of the Commission’s right to seek to compel payment 

of any remaining balance.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

45. Injunctive and Equitable Relief Provisions: The injunctive and equitable relief 

provisions of this Order shall be binding upon Defendants, upon any person under the authority or 

control of any of the Defendants, and upon any person who receives actual notice of this Order, by 

personal service, email, facsimile or otherwise insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or 

participation with Defendants.

46. Notice: All notices required to be given by any provision in this Order shall be sent 

certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows:

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:16047
16

Notice to Commission:

Rosemary Hollinger

Deputy Director

Division of Enforcement 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

525 W. Monroe St., Suite 1100 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

Notice to the Monitor: 

James G. Lundy 

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 

191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3700 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Notice to Defendants:

Christian Kemnitz

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 

525 West Monroe Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

All such notices to the Commission or the Monitor shall reference the name and docket number 

of this action. 

47. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Defendants satisfy in full their CMP

Obligation and the period of monitoring has elapsed, as set forth in this Order, Defendants shall 

provide written notice to the Commission by certified mail of any change to their telephone number 

and mailing address within ten (10) calendar days of the change. 

48. Entire Agreement and Amendments: The Consent Order incorporates all of the terms

and conditions of the settlement among the parties hereto to date. Nothing shall serve to amend or 

modify this Consent Order in any respect whatsoever, unless: (a) reduced to writing; (b) signed by 

all parties hereto; and (c) approved by order of this Court. 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16048
17

49. Invalidation: If any provision of this Order or if the application of any provision or

circumstance is held invalid, then the remainder of this Order and the application of the provision to 

any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by the holding. 

50. Waiver: The failure of any party to this Consent Order at any time to require

performance of any provision of this Consent Order shall in no manner affect the right of the party 

at a later time to enforce the same or any other provision of this Consent Order. No waiver in one 

or more instances of the breach of any provisions contained in this Consent Order shall be deemed 

to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of such breach or waiver of the breach of any 

other provision of this Consent Order. 

51. Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action

to ensure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to this action, including any 

motion by the Defendants to modify, or for relief from, the terms of this Order. 

52. Counterparts and Facsimile Execution: This Consent Order may be executed in two or

more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become 

effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto and 

delivered (by facsimile, e-mail, or otherwise) to the other party, it being understood that all parties 

need not sign the same counterpart. Any counterpart or other signature to this Consent Order that is 

delivered by any means shall be deemed for all purposes as constituting good and valid execution 

and delivery by such party of this Consent Order. 

53. Contempt: Defendants understand that the terms of the Consent Order are enforceable

through contempt proceedings, and that, in any such proceedings they may not challenge the 

validity of this Consent Order. 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:16049
 20th December,

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:16050
19

525 W. Monroe St., #1100

Chicago, IL 60661 

(312) 596-0704 

apassman@cftc.gov 

By: /s/ Daniel R. Burstein

Daniel R. Burstein

525 W. Monroe St., #1100 

Chicago, IL 60661 

(312) 596-0697 

dburstein@cftc.gov 

Dated:_____, 2016 

Case: 1:15-cv-09196 Document #: 287 Filed: 12/20/16 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:16051