UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

In the Matter of: 

COFCO Corp. and Chinatex 

Corp. Ltd., 

Respondents.

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

)

)

) 

CFTC Docket No. 22-33

ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 6(c) AND (d) OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, MAKING 

FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) has reason to believe that 

during certain periods from April 2020 through November 2021, Chinatex Corp. Ltd. 

(“Chinatex”) and its parent company, COFCO Corp. (“COFCO”), through the acts of various 

subsidiaries, violated select Sections of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1–

26, and Commission Regulations (“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1–190 (2021 or as indicated), 

promulgated thereunder, including Sections 4a(b), 4c(a) and 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6a(b), 

6c(a), 6i, former versions of Regulations 150.2 and 19.01(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 150.2, 19.01(a) 

(2020), and current Regulations 18.04 and 150.2, 17 C.F.R. §§ 18.04, 150.2 (2021). Therefore, 

the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative 

proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted to determine whether Respondents engaged in the 

violations set forth herein and to determine whether any order should be issued imposing 

remedial sanctions. 

In anticipation of the institution of an administrative proceeding, Respondents have 

submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept. 

Without admitting or denying any of the findings or conclusions herein, Respondents consent to 

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

Exchange Act, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (“Order”), and acknowledge 

service of this Order.1

1

 Respondents consent to the use of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Order in this proceeding and 

in any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission is a party or claimant, and agree 

that they shall be taken as true and correct and be given preclusive effect therein, without further proof. 

Respondents do not consent, however, to the use of this Order, or the findings or conclusions herein, as the sole 

basis for any other proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission is a party or claimant, other 

than: a proceeding in bankruptcy or receivership; or a proceeding to enforce the terms of this Order. Respondents 
2 

II. FINDINGS 

The Commission finds the following: 

A. SUMMARY 

Starting on April 22, 2020, and continuing through May 1, 2020, Chinatex engaged in 

wash trading in violation of Section 4c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a). This trading minimized 

market risk and ultimately benefitted COFCO. The wash trading was undertaken to liquidate a 

6,600-contract long position in ICE Cotton No. 2 futures in the account of COFCO subsidiary 

COFCO Resources SA (“Resources”) and re-establish it in the account of Chinatex. In order to 

accomplish this, Chinatex traders obtained login credentials for a Resources trader and 

intentionally entered offsetting buy and sell orders—sell orders for Resources and buy orders for 

Chinatex—at substantially the same time, and in substantially the same quantities, on either side 

of the bid-ask spread. Such orders were not entered for purposes of taking a bona fide position 

in the market, but rather to minimize market risk for COFCO, the parent entity of Chinatex and 

Resources. The orders were intentionally structured to—and did—generate a wash result. 

On substantially all trading days in March 2020 and November 2021, certain aggregated 

subsidiaries of COFCO exceeded applicable federal position limits in ICE Cotton No. 2, in 

violation of Section 4a(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6a(b), then-effective version of Regulation 

150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2020) (“Former Regulation 150.2”), amended by Position Limits for 

Derivatives, 86 Fed. Reg. 3236, 3249 (Jan. 14, 2021) (effective Mar. 2021), for March 2020, and 

Current Regulation 150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2021), for November 2021. Subsidiaries of 

COFCO filed Form 304s for March 2020 and November 2021 which failed to justify the 

subsidiaries’ aggregate excess futures positions in ICE Cotton No. 2.2

 The Form 304s also failed 

to accurately reflect the subsidiaries’ cash positions, in violation of Section 4i of the Act, 

7 U.S.C. § 6i, and then-effective Regulation 19.01(a), 17 C.F.R. § 19.01(a) (2020) (“Former 

Regulation 19.01(a)”), removed by Position Limits for Derivatives, 86 Fed. Reg. 3236, 3380 

(effective Mar. 15, 2021). 

In April 2020 and June 2020, Chinatex filed incorrect Form 40s in violation of Section 4i 

of the Act and Regulation 18.04, 17 C.F.R. § 18.04 (2021). These Form 40s incorrectly reflected 

that Chinatex was not associated with the People’s Republic of China. 

B. RESPONDENTS 

COFCO Corp. is a non-U.S. entity with its principal place of business in Beijing, China. 

COFCO, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, is a global agricultural and food business. 

Chinatex Corp. Ltd. is a non-U.S. entity with its principal place of business in Beijing, 

China. Chinatex is a subsidiary of COFCO. 

 

do not consent to the use of the Offer or this Order, or the findings or conclusions in this Order, by any other party in 

any other proceeding. 

2

 Respondents represent that COFCO’s subsidiaries had sufficient cash exposure in March 2020 and November 2021 

to justify exemptions from position limits. 
3 

 Neither Respondent has been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

C. FACTS 

1. Facts Relating to Wash Trading 

In early April 2020, Chinatex sought to hedge its cash-market exposure with a long 

position in ICE Cotton No. 2 futures contracts. The futures position necessary for Chinatex to 

hedge its cash exposure would have exceeded the then-effective 5,000-contract position limit. 

Accordingly, Chinatex requested position limit exemptions from ICE and the CFTC. Chinatex 

failed, however, to specify what kind of exemption it required—e.g., enumerated or nonenumerated. Chinatex also failed to provide any basis for the sought-after exemption—i.e., with 

data reflecting current, anticipated, or historical cash-market exposure. Chinatex’s exemption 

requests were therefore denied. 

To address the lack of an exemption, Chinatex had its traders establish a 6,600-contract 

long position with Resources, which had a position limit exemption from ICE. The position was 

established in a Resources account over the period April 6, 2020, through April 17, 2020. 

In the meantime, Chinatex made a renewed request to ICE for an exemption. In its 

renewed request, Chinatex specified the nature of the sought-after exemption and provided a 

basis therefor, which Chinatex substantiated with copies of fixed-price sales contracts. ICE 

granted the request on April 20, 2020. 

With the exemption in place, Chinatex sought to liquidate Resources’s long position and 

re-establish it in Chinatex’s account. Chinatex wanted the position in its own account so it 

would able to do exchange-for-related-physical transactions with cash-market counterparties. 

In order to accomplish this, Chinatex provided two of its traders with trader ID login 

credentials belonging to a Resources trader. Chinatex instructed its traders to liquidate and reestablish the 6,600-contract long position in a way that minimized “slippage,” i.e., that 

minimized the difference between the average sale price for Resources and the average purchase 

price for Chinatex. 

The two traders, working in shifts, entered offsetting orders—sell orders for Resources 

and buy orders for Chinatex—of approximately the same sizes and at approximately the same 

times, on either side of the ICE limit order book at or near the best bid and offer. The traders 

waited for one set of matched orders to fill before placing the next set. 

Between April 22, 2020, and May 1, 2020, the Chinatex traders were able to successfully 

liquidate and re-establish the entire 6,600-contract long position at minimal net cost to the parent 

entity, COFCO. Resources sold its contracts at an average price of 56.15. Chinatex bought its 

contracts at an average price of 56.16. 

2. Facts Relating to Position Limit Violations and Incorrect Form 304s 

COFCO trades ICE Cotton No. 2 futures through certain subsidiaries, including Chinatex 

and Resources, among others. Positions held by these certain subsidiaries are aggregated for the 
4 

purpose of applying the position limits in Former Regulation 150.2. Separate from the 

aforementioned wash trading scheme, on substantially every trading day in March 2020, certain 

aggregated subsidiaries of COFCO held net short positions in ICE Cotton No. 2 futures in excess 

of the 5,000-contract single- and all-month position limits then applicable. The COFCO 

subsidiaries exceeded the limit by as much as 39.6% (1,980 over the limit) and 22.5% on average 

(1,127 over the limit). 

On substantially every trading day in November 2021, several subsidiaries of COFCO, 

held net short positions in ICE Cotton No. 2 in excess of the 5,950-contract single-month 

position limit then applicable. The COFCO subsidiaries exceeded the limit by as much as 68.1% 

(4,052 over the limit) and 31.8% on average (1,896 over the limit). 

The COFCO subsidiaries failed to file Form 304s reflecting long cash positions sufficient 

to justify the excess futures positions in March 2020 and November 2021.3 The Form 304s filed 

by the subsidiaries reflected no long cash exposure, showing “0” for both inventory and fixedprice purchase contracts. In reality, the subsidiaries had fixed-price cash exposure to cotton. 

The Form 304s were therefore incorrect.4

3. Facts Relating to Incorrect Form 40s 

On April 2, 2020, and June 19, 2020, Chinatex filed Form 40 Statements of Reporting 

Traders with the CFTC. In the Form 40s, Chinatex checked the box marked “no” for affiliation 

with a foreign government. Chinatex is affiliated with a foreign government, as a state-owned 

enterprise of People’s Republic of China. 

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION 

A. Respondents Engaged in Wash Sales in Violation of Section 4c(a) of the Act. 

Section 4c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a), provides that it shall be unlawful for a person 

to enter into, or offer to enter into, any transaction that is “of the character of,” or “commonly 

known in the trade as,” a wash sale. A wash sale is a transaction made without an intent to take a 

genuine, bona fide position in the market, such as a simultaneous purchase and sale designed to 

negate each other so that there is no change in financial position. Reddy v. CFTC, 191 F.3d 109, 

115 (2d Cir. 1999) (denying petition for review of Commission decision finding trader liable for 

wash sales). 

In order to demonstrate a wash sale, the Commission must show a “wash result,” as well 

as evidence that the customer intended to negate risk or price competition at the time the 

transaction was initiated. Wilson v. CFTC, 322 F.3d 555, 559–60 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming 

Commission decision finding trader liable for wash sales). A wash result inheres where there is: 

(1) the purchase and sale (2) of the same delivery month of the same futures contract (3) at the 

 

3

 COFCO subsidiaries’ positions were aggregated for purposes of determining compliance with position limits. See

17 C.F.R. § 150.4 (requiring aggregation of accounts among affiliates).

4

 Respondents represent that the subsidiaries had more than sufficient inventory and fixed-priced purchase contracts 

in March 2020 and November 2021 to have entitled the aggregated group to a hedge exemption. 
5 

same (or a similar) price. Id. Intent can be inferred, inter alia, from the intentional structuring of 

a transaction in a manner to achieve the same result as prearrangement. In re Summerhaven 

Investment Mgmt. LLC, CFTC No. 21-07, 2021 WL 3195869, at *3 (May 18, 2021) (consent 

order) (finding that trader engaged in wash sales). An example would be the placement of 

offsetting orders to buy and sell, while simultaneously taking steps to enhance the likelihood that 

the buy and sell orders would be filled at the same or a similar price. Id. 

Traders for Chinatex prearranged to—and did—enter offsetting purchase and sale orders 

for ICE Cotton No. 2 futures for the same delivery month, at substantially the same times, and at 

prices that were typically within one tick of each other. The traders took steps to enhance the 

likelihood that the offsetting buy and sell orders would be filled at a similar price by using login 

credentials for a Resources trader to place offsetting orders at the same time for two different 

accounts, and also by structuring their orders to ensure that one set of offsetting orders were 

filled before entering the next set. The orders were not intended to take a bona fide position in 

the market, but rather to liquidate and re-establish a position while minimizing risk and price 

competition. The plan worked, and Chinatex’s traders were able to liquidate the 6,600-contract 

long position at Resources and re-establish it at Chinatex at minimal cost to COFCO, the parent 

of both entities. In so doing, Chinatex violated Section 4c(a) of the Act by entering into 

transactions of the character of, and commonly known as, wash sales.5

COFCO controlled Chinatex, directly or indirectly, and knowingly induced, directly or 

indirectly, Chinatex’s act or acts in violation of the Act; therefore, pursuant to Section 13(b) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), COFCO is liable for Chinatex’s violations of Section 4c(a) of the 

Act. 

B. COFCO Exceeded Speculative Position Limits in Violation of Section 4a(b) of the 

Act and Current and Former Regulation 150.2. 

Section 4a(b)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6a(b)(2), makes it unlawful “directly or indirectly 

to hold or control a net long or a net short position in any commodity for future delivery . . . in 

excess of any position limit fixed by the Commission for or with respect to such commodity 

. . . .” The Commission is not required to establish scienter—i.e., proof of intent to exceed the 

applicable position limit—to prove a violation of position limits. Saberi v. CFTC, 488 F.3d 

1207, 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (denying petition for review of Commission order finding trader in 

violation of position limits); CFTC v. Hunt, 591 F.2d 1211, 1218 (7th Cir. 1979) (affirming 

CFTC’s authority to impose and enforce position limits). Moreover, the Act “unambiguously 

imposes liability” for position limit violations. Saberi, 488 F.3d at 1212 n.4 (rejecting a trader’s 

 

5 See Mitsubishi Corp., CFTC No. 97-10, 1997 WL 345634, at *4 (June 24, 1997) (consent order) (finding that 

respondent entered into wash trades where it instructed brokers to enter into offsetting spread trades with minimal 

price differentials in order to transfer trading profits to later reporting period); Wilson, 322 F.3d at 560 (affirming 

Commission order holding broker from Mitsubshi liable for wash trading); Piasio v. CFTC, 54 F. App’x 702, 705 

(2d Cir. 2002) (affirming Commission order holding other broker from Mitsubshi liable for wash trading); see also 

In re San Diego Gas & Electric Co., CFTC No. 10-08, 2010 WL 1638992, at *3 (Apr. 22, 2010) (consent order) 

(finding that respondent entered into wash trades when it placed offsetting orders at or near the same price in order 

to liquidate and “re-establish” its position).
6 

contention that the Division was required to prove that he intended to violate the speculative 

position limits) (citing Hunt, 591 F.2d at 1218). 

In March 2020, the Commission’s single-month and all-months position limit for ICE 

Cotton No. 2 futures was 5,000 contracts net long or short. 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2020). Because 

certain aggregated subsidiaries of COFCO held positions in ICE Cotton No. 2 futures in excess 

of the single- and all-months position limits on substantially every trading day that month, 

COFCO violated Section 4(a)(b) of the Act and Former Regulation 150.2. 

By November 2021, the Commission’s single-month position limit for ICE Cotton No. 2 

futures had been increased to 5,950 contracts net long or short. 17 C.F.R. § 150.2; 17 C.F.R. Pt. 

150, App. E (setting forth limits for each contract). Nonetheless, COFCO, through its 

aggregated subsidiaries, held positions in ICE Cotton No. 2 futures in excess of the single-month 

position limit on substantially every trading day that month; therefore, COFCO violated Section 

4(a)(b) of the Act and Current Regulation 150.2. 

C. COFCO, By and Through its Subsidiaries, Filed Incorrect Form 304s in Violation of 

Section 4i of the Act and Former Regulation 19.01(a). 

Section 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6i, makes it unlawful for any person to make any 

contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules 

of any contract market in excess of position limits established by the Commission, “unless such 

person files or causes to be filed with the properly designated officer of the Commission such 

reports regarding any transactions or positions [in excess of position limits] as the Commission 

may by rule or regulation require.” 

During the periods when COFCO exceeded position limits in ICE Cotton No. 2, which is 

to say, March 2020 and November 2021, Former Regulation 19.01(a), 17 C.F.R. § 19.01(a) 

(2020), required all persons holding futures positions in excess of position limits for certain 

commodities including cotton, any part of which constituted a bona fide hedging position, to file 

a Form 304 with the Commission.6

Under Former Regulation 19.01(a), Form 304 filers were required to include data 

showing the composition of their fixed-price cash positions in each commodity hedged, 

including, among other things, the quantities of: (a) the stocks owned; (b) open fixed-price 

purchase commitments; and (c) open fixed-price sale commitments. Form 304s were required to 

be filed on a monthly basis. 17 C.F.R. § 19.01(b) (2020). 

In March 2020 and November 2021, COFCO, through its subsidiaries, held positions in 

ICE Cotton No. 2 in excess of limits, and was therefore require to file accurate Form 304s. 

Because COFCO, by and through its aggregated subsidiaries, filed Form 304s that did not 

 

6

Former Regulation 19.01(a) was removed effective March 15, 2021. The Commission specified, however, in its 

notice of final rule, that market participants seeking to avail themselves of a bona fide hedge exemption must 

continue to file Form 304s through January 1, 2022, or until the relevant exchange implements the newly-enacted 

Regulation 150.5, 17 C.F.R. § 150.5. Position Limits for Derivatives, 86 Fed. Reg. at 3251. ICE had not yet 

implemented Regulation 150.5 by November 2021. Accordingly, COFCO subsidiaries were still required to file 

Form 304s for aggregate positions in excess of limits. 
7 

accurately state inventory or fixed-price purchase commitments in cotton, COFCO violated 

Former Regulation 19.01(a).7 

D. Chinatex Filed Incorrect Form 40s in Violation of Section 4i of the Act and 

Regulation 18.04. 

As set forth above, Section 4i of the Act makes it unlawful for any person to make any 

contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules 

of any contract market in excess of position limits established by the Commission, unless such 

person files reports as the Commission may require. Regulation 18.04, 17 C.F.R. § 18.04, 

provides, inter alia, that every trader who owns, holds, or controls a “reportable futures or 

options position”— i.e., a position exceeding a certain minimum threshold—and after receiving 

a “special call” from Staff, shall file a Form 40, “Statement of Reporting Trader,” completed in 

accordance with the instructions thereto. The instructions to Form 40 require the trader to 

disclose whether the trader has any affiliation with a foreign government. 

Because Chinatex filed Form 40s incorrectly stating that it was not affiliated with a 

foreign government, when in fact it was affiliated with the government of the People’s Republic 

of China, Chinatex violated Section 4i of the Act and Regulation 18.04. 

IV. FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that, during the period April 2020 through 

May 2020, Chinatex and COFCO violated Section 4c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a). The 

Commission finds that, during March 2020 and November 2021, COFCO, by and through its 

aggregated subsidiaries, violated Sections 4a(b) and 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6a(b), 6i, Current 

Regulation 150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2, Former Regulation 150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2020), and 

Former Regulation 19.01(a), 17 C.F.R. § 19.01(a) (2020). The Commission finds that in April 

2020 and June 2020, Chinatex violated Section 6i of the Act and Regulation 18.04, 17 C.F.R. § 

18.04. 

V. OFFER OF SETTLEMENT 

Respondents have submitted the Offer in which they, without admitting or denying the 

findings and conclusions herein: 

A. Acknowledge service of this Order; 

B. Admit 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; 

 

7

 Respondents represent that if the COFCO subsidiaries had filed accurate Form 304s, such filings would evidence 

sufficient cash exposure in March 2020 and November 2021 to justify exemptions from position limits. 
8 

C. Waive: 

1. The filing and service of a complaint and notice of hearing; 

2. A hearing; 

3. All post-hearing procedures; 

4. Judicial review by any court; 

5. Any and all objections to the participation by any member of the Commission’s 

staff in the Commission’s consideration of the Offer; 

6. Any and all claims that they may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 504, and 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and/or the rules promulgated by the 

Commission in conformity therewith, Part 148 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. 

pt. 148 (2022), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; 

7. Any and all claims that they may possess under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, tit. II, §§ 201–253, 110 

Stat. 847, 857–74 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and in scattered 

sections of 5 U.S.C. and 15 U.S.C.), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; 

and 

8. Any claims of Double Jeopardy based on the institution of this proceeding or the 

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

other relief, including this Order; 

D. Stipulate that the record basis on which this Order is entered shall consist solely of the 

findings contained in this Order to which Respondents have consented in the Offer; 

E. Consent, solely on the basis of the Offer, to the Commission’s entry of this Order that: 

1. Makes findings by the Commission that: 

i. Respondent Chinatex violated Sections 4c(a) and 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6c(a), 6i, and Regulation 18.04, 17 C.F.R. § 18.04 (2021); and 

ii. Respondent COFCO violated Sections 4a(b), 4c(a), and 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§§ 6a(b), 6c(a), 6i, and Former Regulation 19.01(a), 17 C.F.R.§ 19.01(a) 

(2020), Former Regulation 150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2020), and current 

Regulation 150.2, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2021); 

2. Orders: 

i. Respondent Chinatex to cease and desist from violating Sections 4c(a) and 4i of 

the Act and Regulation 18.04; and 
9 

ii. Respondent COFCO to cease and desist from violating Sections 4a(b), 4c(a), 

and 4i of the Act and Current Regulation 150.2; 

3. Orders Respondents to pay, jointly and severally, a civil monetary penalty in the 

amount of seven hundred twenty thousand ($720,000), plus post-judgment interest 

within thirty days of the date of entry of this Order; 

4. Orders Respondents and their successors and assigns to comply with the conditions 

and undertakings consented to in the Offer and as set forth in Part VI of this Order; 

Upon consideration, the Commission has determined to accept the Offer. 

VI. ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Respondent Chinatex, and its successors and assigns, shall cease and desist from 

violating Sections 4c(a) and 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(a), 6i, and Regulation 18.04, 

17 C.F.R. § 18.04 (2021), and Respondent COFCO, and its successors and assigns, shall 

cease and desist from violating Sections 4a(b), 4c(a), and 4i of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6a(b), 

6c(a), 6i, and Current Regulation 150.02, 17 C.F.R. § 150.2 (2021); 

2. Respondents shall pay, jointly and severally, a civil monetary penalty in the amount of 

seven hundred twenty thousand $720,000 (“CMP Obligation”), within thirty days of the 

date of the entry of this Order. If the CMP Obligation is not paid in full within thirty 

days of the date of entry of this Order, then 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. 

Respondents shall pay the CMP Obligation and any post-judgment interest 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: 

MMAC/ESC/AMK326 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 266 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov 

If payment is to be made by electronic funds transfer, Respondents shall contact Tonia 

King or her successor at the above address to receive payment instructions and shall fully 

comply with those instructions. Respondents shall accompany payment of the CMP 

Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the paying Respondent and the name and 

docket number of this proceeding. The paying Respondent 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. 

3. Respondents and their successors and assigns shall comply with the following conditions 

and undertakings set forth in the Off er: 

1. Public Statements: Respondents agree that neither they nor any of their 

successors and assigns, agents or employees under their 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 Respondents': (i) testimonial obligations; or 

(ii) right to take legal positions in other proceedings to which the Commission is 

not a party. Respondents and their successors and assigns shall comply with this 

agreement, and shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of their agents 

and/or employees under their authority or control understand and comply with 

this agreement. 

2. Partial Satisfaction: Respondents understand and agree that any acceptance by 

the Commission of any partial payment of Respondents' respective CMP 

Obligations shall not be deemed a waiver of their obligation 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. 

3. Change of Address/Phone: Until such time as Respondents satisfy in full their 

CMP Obligation as set forth in this Order, Respondents shall provide written 

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

number and mailing address within ten calendar days of the change. 

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

By the Commission. 

Christopher 

~h~ J. K1rkpatrick 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: September 23, 2022