UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

ORLANDO DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

HIGHRISE ADVANTAGE, LLC; 

BULL RUN ADVANTAGE, LLC; 

GREEN KNIGHT INVESTMENTS, 

LLC; KING ROYALTY LLC; SR&B 

INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES, 

INC.; AVINASH SINGH; RANDY 

ROSSEAU; DANIEL COLOGERO; 

HEMRAJ SINGH; and 

SURUJPAUL SAHDEO,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-1657-CEM-RMN 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral 

argument on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment by Default (Dkt. 177), filed 

on June 16, 2023. Upon consideration, it is respectfully recommended that 

Plaintiff’s Motion be granted. 

1 This Report and Recommendation adopts some, but not all, language and 

provisions that were proposed by Plaintiff. See Dkt. 177-2.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 27 PageID 2287
- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint alleging 

that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to solicit and 

misappropriate money invested with Defendants beginning in or around 

February 2013. Dkt. 98 at ¶ 1. According to the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants solicited at least $57.9 million from more than 1,700 investors 

and misappropriated the funds by depositing them into Defendants' personal 

bank and trade accounts. Id. 

Defendant Avinash Singh (“Singh”) and Highrise Advantage, LLC

(“Highrise”) initially appeared through counsel who withdrew with the 

Court’s consent on March 16, 2023. As a result of Court order (Dkt. 160), the 

Clerk entered default against Defendants Singh and Highrise. Dkts. 161, 

162. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), Plaintiff now moves for entry of 

final default judgment. Dkt. 177. The matter is ripe for review. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish a two-step process for 

obtaining default judgment. First, when a party against whom a judgment for 

affirmative relief is sought fails to plead or otherwise defend as provided by 

the Federal Rules, the Clerk may enter default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, 

after obtaining a clerk’s default, the Plaintiff must move for default judgment. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Before entering default judgment, the Court must ensure 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 27 PageID 2288
- 3 -

that it has jurisdiction over the claims and parties, and that the well-pled 

factual allegations, which are assumed to be true, adequately state a claim for 

which relief may be granted. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 

515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). If default judgment is warranted, then 

the court must next consider whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief 

requested. “A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in 

amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c).

III. ANALYSIS

The Amended Complaint asserts seven causes of action against Singh 

and Highrise for violations of Sections 4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 4o of the Act (7 

U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)). 

A. Factual Findings

Specifically, the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 98) alleges the following, 

which the undersigned adopts as its findings of fact:

a. Defendant Highrise served as a “master fund” entity in a “masterfeeder” fund structure. As the “master” fund (“Master Pool”), Highrise directly 

and indirectly through feeder funds (“Feeder Pools”) solicited money from pool 

participants to trade forex. Dkt. 98 at ¶ 38.

b. Highrise pool participants deposited funds directly into Highrise 

or indirectly through one of four Feeder Pools (Bull Run, Green Knight, King 

Royalty, and SR&B), which deposited participant funds in Highrise. Highrise 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 3 of 27 PageID 2289
- 4 -

pooled the funds together, and commingled the pool participant funds with 

other non-pool participant funds. Highrise then transferred a portion of the 

pool participants’ funds into forex trading accounts in Highrise’s own name.

Id. at ¶¶ 38, 43.

c. Beginning on or around February 2013 and continuing until the 

SRO was entered on September 16, 2020 (the Relevant Period”), Singh and 

Highrise solicited pool participants to invest in forex trading. Id. at ¶ 39. 

d. As a result of these solicitations, pool participants sent Highrise 

$57,901,423. Rather than trade all pool participant funds, Singh and Highrise 

misappropriated $25,558,594, which were used for Ponzi-type payments and 

personal expenses, in addition to payments to the Feeder Pools. Id.

e. To conceal its misappropriation, Highrise issued monthly account 

statements with false information and masked its misappropriation by making 

Ponzi-type payments. Id.

f. Singh marketed himself as a successful trader. During the 

Relevant Period, Singh instructed pool participants to sign contracts with 

Highrise. At least some contracts specified that the participants’ funds would 

be “traded on FOREX only” and provided that the pool participant was 

required to pay to Highrise a fee of 50% of the individual pool participant’s 

purported profit per positive trading month for reimbursement of Highrise’s 

ordinary administrative expenses. Id. at ¶ 41.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 4 of 27 PageID 2290
- 5 -

g. Singh and Highrise instructed pool participants to write checks or 

wire funds directly to bank accounts in the name of Highrise, which Singh 

controlled, where pool participant funds were pooled and commingled, 

including with Singh’s own funds. Singh used those accounts to pay for his own 

personal expenses, including pest control, house cleaning services, and medical 

costs. Id. at ¶ 42.

h. Commencing on or about December 13, 2016, Highrise opened 

eleven forex trading accounts with a retail foreign exchange dealer (“RFED”), 

RFED 1 in New York, in the name of Highrise. Singh transferred some of the 

pool participants’ funds to RFED 1 and traded it there. Highrise also opened 

forex trading accounts with foreign RFEDs. Id. at ¶ 45.

i. From February 2013 to March 2020, Highrise solicited and 

accepted $57,901,423.57 from individual pool participants and from the Feeder 

Pools. Highrise used no more than $2,408,438.41 of participant funds for forex 

trading. Id.

j. Highrise and Singh misappropriated $25,558,594 of the pool 

participants’ funds to pay for, among other things, Singh’s personal expenses, 

Ponzi-type payments to pool participants, and payments to feeder fund 

entities. For example, just in one account over $1,500,000 was used to pay for 

transactions that are not directly related to forex trading including payments 

for travel, car costs, professional services, retail purchases, phone bills, 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 5 of 27 PageID 2291
- 6 -

marketing, home and personal costs, events, dining, and other miscellaneous 

expenses. Id. at ¶ 44.

k. Highrise sent pool participants monthly account statements via email (the “Monthly Statements”). A Pool Participant in the Master Pool who 

deposited funds directly with Highrise, “Pool Participant #2,” received Monthly 

Statements. The Monthly Statements provided Pool Participant #2 with 

information including opening balance, profit, deposit, withdrawal, and 

account balance. The Monthly Statements did not provide the Master Pool’s 

account activity, profits, losses, net balances, or the participation units of the 

participant. Id. at ¶ 75.

l. The statements Pool Participant #2 received were false. On at least 

eighteen occasions, they showed profits for a given month that were larger than 

the entire actual forex trading profits of the Master Pool or showed account 

balances that were larger than the forex account balances of the entire Master 

Pool. Id. at ¶ 76.

m. Highrise prepared Pool Participant #2’s Monthly Statements 

knowing that they would be provided to Pool Participant #2, whom Highrise 

knew or should have known would rely upon the information included. Id. at ¶ 

77.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 6 of 27 PageID 2292
- 7 -

n. Highrise intentionally issued Monthly Statements with false 

information to mislead and lull participants into continuing to deposit funds 

in the pool. Id. at ¶ 78.

o. Highrise also issued Monthly Statements to Defendants Green 

Knight, SR&B, King Royalty, and Bull Run. These Monthly Statements were 

also false. Id. at ¶ 79.

p. As the sole signatory on the Highrise bank accounts used to collect 

funds from pool participants and the Highrise accounts used for forex trading, 

Singh had personal knowledge of the amount of funds accepted from pool 

participants, the disposition of those funds, the losses in Highrise’s trading 

accounts and the profits made from trades undertaken on behalf of pool 

participants. When Highrise issued Monthly Statements with false 

information, Singh knew that Highrise’s representations were false. Id. at ¶ 

80.

q. During the Relevant Period, Highrise acted as a commodity pool 

operator (“CPO”) in that it solicited and accepted funds from pool participants 

for the purpose of pooling the funds in a commodity pool. Highrise solicited and 

accepted funds directly from its own pool participants and from Green Knight, 

Bull Run, SR&B and King Royalty to trade forex. Thus, Highrise acted as a 

CPO, but was not registered as required. Id. at ¶ 81.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 7 of 27 PageID 2293
- 8 -

r. On September 2, 2014, Singh filed a notice of exemption with the 

National Futures Association (NFA) on behalf of Highrise claiming it was 

exempt from the requirement to register as a CPO pursuant to CFTC 

Regulation 4.13 (a)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 4.13(a)(2) (2022). By filing for the exemption 

pursuant to 17 C.F.R. § 4.13(a)(2), Singh and Highrise affirmed that none of 

the pools operated by them had more than 15 participants at any time and that 

the total gross capital contributions the pool received for units of participation 

in all of the pools it operated or that it intended to operate did not in the 

aggregate exceed $400,000. Highrise collected more than $400,000 in gross 

capital contributions by at least September 20, 2016. Because Highrise did not 

fit both requirements of 17 C.F.R. § 4.13(a)(2), Highrise is not eligible for the 

exemption that it claimed and, therefore, should have been registered as a CPO 

no later than September 20, 2016. Id. at ¶ 82.

s. Likewise, Singh should have been registered as an associated 

person (“AP”) of Highrise because he solicited funds or property for 

participation in a pooled investment vehicle that engaged in retail forex 

transactions. Id. at ¶ 84.

t. Highrise did not form a separate legal entity for its commodity 

pool, nor operate it as a separate legal entity and used bank accounts that hold 

participant funds for items not related to forex trading. Id. at ¶¶ 153–164.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 8 of 27 PageID 2294
- 9 -

u. Highrise failed to provide pool participants with required 

disclosures. The document it provided to its participants did not contain the 

risk disclosure required by 17 C.F.R. § 4.24. It also did not disclose the business 

background of the CPO or its manager for the past five years or the past 

performance of the Highrise Master Fund for the past five years, as required 

by 17 C.F.R. § 4.21. Id. at ¶ 174.

B. Defendants Committed Fraud in Violation of Sections 

4b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 4o of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 

Regulation 5.2(b), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) by Misappropriation, 

Fraudulent Solicitation, and False Statements.

By the conduct described in paragraphs “d” through “s” above, 

Defendants cheated and defrauded, or attempted to cheat and defraud, and 

willfully deceived, or attempted to deceive their pool participants or 

prospective pool participants by, among other things, knowingly or recklessly, 

misrepresenting the performance of the Master Pool, issuing Monthly 

Statements to individual pool participants that deposited funds directly with 

Highrise and to the Feeder Pools that contained false information about the 

profits and balances of the individual pool participant’s respective interests in 

the Master Pool and the Feeder Pool’s respective interests in the Master Pool, 

and misappropriating pool participant funds, in violation of 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b). 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 9 of 27 PageID 2295
- 10 -

Highrise and Singh, while acting as a CPO and an AP of a CPO 

respectfully, violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A) and (B) by employing schemes or 

artifices to defraud pool participants and prospective pool participants and 

engaging in transactions, practices, or a course of business that operated as a 

fraud or deceit upon pool participants or prospective pool participants by using 

the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce. The 

fraudulent acts include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) falsely 

representing that all of the funds deposited with Highrise were being traded 

by Highrise, which was not true; (2) issuing Monthly Statements to individual 

pool participants that deposited funds directly with Highrise and to the Feeder 

Pools that contained false information about the profits and balances of the 

individual pool participant’s respective interests in the Master Pool and the 

Feeder Pools’ respective interests in the Master Pool; and (3) failing to disclose 

that pooled funds had been misappropriated by Singh for his own personal use.

C. Highrise and Singh Violated the Act and Commission 

Regulations by Failing to Register as a CPO and AP of a 

CPO, Respectfully.

7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) makes it unlawful for any CPO to make use of the mails 

or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with its 

business, unless it is registered with the CFTC. 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc) 

also makes it unlawful for a CPO to operate a pooled investment in foreign 

currency whose participants are not eligible contract participants (ECPs”), as 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 10 of 27 PageID 2296
- 11 -

defined by Section la(l8) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § la(l8)(xi), ECPs without 

registration. 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i) makes it unlawful for any CPO, as defined 

in Regulation 5.1(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(d)(1) (2022), to be engaged in retail forex 

transactions without being so registered. During the Relevant Period, Highrise 

acted as a CPO for Highrise by soliciting and accepting funds, using 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce, for a pooled investment vehicle from 

pool participants who were not ECPs for the purpose of engaging in retail forex 

transactions while failing to register as a CPO, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(cc), and 6m(1) and 7 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(2)(i).

Additionally, it is unlawful for a person to be associated with a CPO as 

a partner, officer, employee, consultant, or agent, or a person occupying a 

similar status or performing similar functions, in any capacity that involves 

the solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in a retail 

forex pool unless registered with the Commission as an AP of the CPO 

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12, 5.3(a)(2)(ii). 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) 

also makes it unlawful for a CPO to permit such a person to become or remain 

associated with the CPO in any such capacity if the CPO knew or should have 

known that the person was not registered as an AP. Singh violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6k(2) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12 and 5.3(a)(2)(ii) in that he acted as an AP of 

Highrise without the benefit of registration as an AP of a CPO.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 11 of 27 PageID 2297
- 12 -

Finally, Highrise violated 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) in that, acting as a CPO, it 

allowed Singh to act as its AP when it knew or should have known that Singh 

was not registered as an AP.

D. Defendants Violated Regulations 4.2(a)(1), (b), 17 C.F.R. § 

4.20(a)(1), (b) by Failing to Operate Highrise as a Separate 

Legal Entity. 

Regulation 4.20(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(a)(1) (2022), requires a CPO to 

“operate its pool as an entity cognizable as a separate legal entity from that of 

the pool operator.” Regulation 4.20(b), 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.20(b) (2022), further 

provides that the CPO must receive funds from existing or prospective 

participants in the pool’s name. Regulation 5.4, 17 C.F.R. § 5.4 (2022), states 

that Part 4 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. pt. 4 (2022), applies to any person 

required to register as a CPO pursuant to Part 5 of the Regulations, 17 C.F.R. 

pt. 5 (2022), relating to forex transactions. Highrise received participants’ 

funds in its name, rather than in separate pool accounts and did not maintain 

its pool as a separate legal entity. By such actions, Highrise failed to operate 

its pool as a separate legal entity and failed to properly deposit participants’ 

funds in violation of Regulation 4.20(a)(1) and (b).

E. Defendant Highrise Failed to Provide Pool Participants with 

Required Pool Disclosures in Violation of Regulation 4.21.

Regulation 4.21(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.21(a)(1) (2022) requires that CPOs 

registered or required to be registered under the Act deliver a Disclosure 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 12 of 27 PageID 2298
- 13 -

Document to prospective participants in a pool that complies with Regulations 

4.24 and 4.25, 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24, 4.25 (2022), which detail general disclosures 

required for pools and performance disclosures for different points in the pool’s 

operating history, respectively. Highrise failed to provide prospective pool 

participants with a pool disclosure document in the form specified in 

Regulations 4.24 and 4.25. In violation of Regulation 4.21, Highrise did not 

provide account statements to its pool participants that showed the account 

activity of the Master Pool as a whole, its profits, losses, net balances or the 

participation units of a pool participant. Instead, account statements sent to 

pool participants falsely showed profits for the participant every month.

F. Liability

i. Principal Agent Liability

Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(B) and Regulation 1.2, 17 

C.F.R. § 1.2 (2022), provide that the “act, omission, or failure of any official, 

agent, or other person acting for any individual, association, partnership, 

corporation, or trust within the scope of his employment or office shall be 

deemed the act, omission, or failure of such individual, association, 

partnership, corporation, or trust, as well as of such official, agent, or other 

person.” In determining liability under Section 2(a)(l)(B) of the Act and 

Regulation 1.2, the Eleventh Circuit applies a common law test for actual 

agency, either implied or express, which requires: (1) consent to the agency by 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 13 of 27 PageID 2299
- 14 -

both principal and agent; and (2) the control of the agent by the principal. 

CFTC v. Gibraltar, 575 F. 3d 1180, 1188–89 (11th Cir. 2009).

Singh admitted that he was an agent of Highrise. He has also admitted 

that he was the founder, registered agent, principal member and manager of 

Highrise, opened at least 14 bank accounts in Highrise’s name and is the sole 

signatory on the bank and trading accounts in Highrise’s name. Singh 

necessarily caused the actions of Highrise and was Highrise’s sole actor. Thus, 

the violative conduct of Singh, acting on behalf of Highrise occurred within the 

scope of his employment. Therefore, Highrise is liable for Singh’s violations of 

the Act and Regulations pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) and Regulation 1.2.

ii. Controlling Person Liability

Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), provides that a defendant who 

possesses, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of 

the management and policies of an entity may be liable as a controlling person 

of that entity, provided that the defendant either knowingly induces, directly 

or indirectly, the violative acts or fails to act in good faith. 

Singh exercised direct control over Highrise. He had signatory authority 

over the Highrise bank and trading accounts that held participant funds and 

transferred some of those funds to Highrise trading accounts or other Highrise 

or personal bank accounts. He solicited pool participants without registration 

and without registering Highrise. He sent false statements to Highrise’s pool 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 14 of 27 PageID 2300
- 15 -

participants. By virtue of his control over Highrise, there can be no doubt that 

he had actual knowledge of the fraudulent and unlawful conduct committed by 

Highrise and thus, knowingly induced its violations of the Act and Commission 

Regulations. Therefore, Singh controlled Highrise and is liable for Highrise’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations to the same extent as Highrise itself.

G. Remedy

Without seeking leave, Plaintiff submitted a proposed order containing 

the terms of its desired injunction. For the most part, I agree with Plaintiff 

that an injunction is an appropriate remedy for the conduct alleged in the 

Amended Complaint. But parts of the proposed order do not comply with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), which requires that “[e]very order 

granting an injunction” must “state the reasons why it issued,” “state its terms 

specifically,” and “describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the 

complaint or other document—the act or acts sought to be restrained or 

required.”

Rule 65(d)’s specificity requirement “prevent[s] uncertainty and 

confusion on the part of those faced with injunctive orders and . . . avoid[s] the 

possible founding of a contempt citation on a decree too vague to be 

understood.” Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974) (finding that 

because “an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial 

punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 15 of 27 PageID 2301
- 16 -

of precisely what conduct is outlawed.”). And so, injunctions must contain “an 

operative command capable of ‘enforcement.’” Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. 

Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 73–74 (1967). This is so because a 

“person enjoined by court order should only be required to look within the four 

corners of the injunction to determine what he must do or refrain from doing.” 

Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 1532 n. 12 (11th Cir. 1996). 

I conclude that the injunction proposed by Plaintiff contains terms that 

are nothing more than a command to obey-the-law. See Hughey, 78 F.3d at 

1531. In Hughey and other cases, the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that 

such injunctions violate Rule 65(d) and are “incapable of enforcement as an 

operative command.” 78 F.3d at 1531. I therefore recommend that any 

permanent injunction imposed by the Court in this case omit the bald, obeythe-law language proposed by Plaintiff.

In sum, I find that unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, there is 

a reasonable likelihood that Highrise and Singh will continue to engage in the 

acts and practices alleged in the Amended Complaint. On that basis, I 

respectfully recommend the Court issue an order enjoining Highrise and Singh 

as proposed, omitting the unenforceable obey-the-law language in the proposed 

order.

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 16 of 27 PageID 2302
- 17 -

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court order as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 177) be GRANTED;

2. The Clerk should be directed to enter default judgment in favor 

of Plaintiff and against Defendants Avinash Singh and Highrise Advantage, 

LLC; 

3. The Court should enjoin Defendants Singh and Highrise from

directly or indirectly engaging in the following:

a. Cheating or defrauding or attempting to cheat or defraud 

any person, willfully making or causing to make to any person any 

false report or statement or cause to be entered for any person any 

false record or willfully deceiving or attempting to deceive any 

person by any means whatsoever in connection with retail forex 

transactions, contracts or agreements, accounts or pooled 

investment vehicles therein in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-

(C), and Regulation 5.2(b), 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b) (2022);

b. Employing any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any 

client or pool participant or engaging in any transaction, practice, 

or course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit upon any 

client or pool participant in connection with retail forex 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 17 of 27 PageID 2303
- 18 -

transactions, contracts or agreements, accounts or pooled 

investment vehicles therein in violation of 7 U.S.C §§ 6o(1)(A) and 

(B);

c. Making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce in connection with its business as a CPO of a 

pooled investment in foreign currency whose participants are not 

ECPs without registration, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 

2(c)(2)(c)(iii)(I)(cc) and 6m(1) and 17 C.F.R. §5.3(a)(2)(i)(2022);

d. Being associated with a CPO as a partner, officer, employee, 

consultant, or agent, or a person occupying a similar status or 

performing similar functions, in any capacity that involves the 

solicitation of funds, securities, or property for participation in a 

retail forex pool unless registered with the Commission as an AP 

of the CPO pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12, 

5.3(a)(2)(ii) or permitting such person to become or remain 

associated with the CPO in any such capacity if the CPO knew or 

should have known that the person was not registered as an AP in 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(2);

e. Failing to operate a retail forex pool as a legal entity 

separate from that of the pool operator in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 

4.20(a)(l);

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 18 of 27 PageID 2304
- 19 -

f. Failing to receive funds, securities, or other from a 

prospective or existing retail forex pool participant in the 

commodity pool’s name in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.20(b); and

g. Failing to deliver or cause to be delivered to a prospective 

pool participant a Disclosure Document prepared in accordance 

with 17 C.F.R. §§ 4.24, 4.25, in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.21;

h. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as 

that term is defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40);

i. Entering into any transactions involving “commodity 

interests” (as that term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 

1.3 (2018)), for their own personal account or for any account in 

which they have a direct or indirect interest;

j. Having any commodity interests traded on their behalf;

k. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any 

other person or entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, 

in any account involving commodity interests; 

l. Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person 

for the purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests;

m. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from 

registration with the Commission in any capacity, and engaging in 

any activity requiring such registration or exemption from 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 19 of 27 PageID 2305
- 20 -

registration with the Commission, except as provided for in 

Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2022); and/ or;

n. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 

3.1(a), 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)), agent or any other officer or employee of 

any person (as that term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a(38)), registered, 

exempted from registration or required to be registered with the 

Commission, except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9).

4. The Court should order Defendants to pay restitution in the 

following manner:

a. to pay jointly and severally, in the amount of $25,585,594.00 

(“Restitution Obligation”). If the Restitution Obligation is not paid 

immediately, post-judgment interest shall accrue on the 

Restitution Obligation beginning on the date of entry of any Court 

Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate 

prevailing on the date of the Court’s Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961;

b. The Court should appoint the National Futures Association 

(“NFA”) as Monitor (“Monitor”) to receive restitution payments 

from Defendants, and direct that the funds frozen pursuant to the 

Court’s Order of Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 73) be transferred to 

the Monitor in the name “Highrise Restitution Fund” by financial 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 20 of 27 PageID 2306
- 21 -

institutions holding such frozen funds in order for the Monitor to 

make distributions as set forth below. Because the Monitor is 

acting as an officer of this Court in performing these services, the 

NFA shall not be liable for any action or inaction arising from 

NFA’s appointment as Monitor, other than actions involving fraud;

c. Defendants shall be directed to make Restitution 

Obligation payments, and any post-judgment interest payments, 

pursuant to the Court’s Order to the Monitor in the name of 

“Highrise Restitution Fund” and shall be directed to send such 

payments by electronic funds transfer, or by U.S. postal money 

order, certified check, bank cashier’s check, or bank money order, 

to the Office of Administration, National Futures Association, 320 

South Canal Street, 24th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606, under cover 

letter that identifies the paying Defendant and the name and 

docket number of this proceeding. Defendants shall be directed to 

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;

d. The Monitor shall be directed to oversee the Restitution 

Obligation and shall be given the discretion to determine the 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 21 of 27 PageID 2307
- 22 -

manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable fashion to 

Defendants’ pool participants identified by the Commission or may 

defer distribution until such time as the Monitor deems 

appropriate. In the event that the amount of Restitution 

Obligation payments to the Monitor are of a de minimis nature 

such that the Monitor determines that the administrative cost of 

making a distribution to eligible pool participants is impractical, 

the Monitor should be allowed, in its discretion, treat such 

restitution payments as civil monetary penalty payments, which 

the Monitor shall forward to the Commission following the 

instructions for civil monetary penalty payments set forth below;

e. Defendants shall be directed to cooperate with the Monitor 

as appropriate to provide such information as the Monitor deems 

necessary and appropriate to identify Defendants’ pool 

participants to whom the Monitor, in its sole discretion, may 

determine to include in any plan for distribution of any Restitution 

Obligation payments. Defendants shall be directed to execute any 

documents necessary to release funds that they have in any 

repository, bank, investment or other financial institution, 

wherever located, in order to make partial or total payment toward 

the Restitution Obligation;

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 22 of 27 PageID 2308
- 23 -

f. The Court should direct that any funds frozen pursuant to 

the Consent Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 73) be transferred to the 

Monitor in the name “Highrise Restitution Fund” for disbursement 

in accordance with the procedures set forth above;

g. The Court should direct that the amount of $6,931.99 

received from Highrise and Singh and deposited into the Court’s 

Registry (Dkt. 163) be transferred to the Monitor in the name 

“Highrise Restitution Fund” in accordance with the procedures set 

forth above;

h. The Court should direct that at the beginning of each 

calendar year the Monitor is to provide the Commission a report 

detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendants’ pool 

participants during each previous year. The Monitor shall be 

directed to transmit this report under a cover letter that 

identifies the name and docket number of this proceeding to the 

Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

20581;

i. The Court should order that the amount payable to each 

pool participant shall not limit the ability of any pool participant 

from proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendants or 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 23 of 27 PageID 2309
- 24 -

any other person or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed 

in any way to limit or abridge the rights of any pool participant 

that exist under state or common law;

j. To the extend that any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for 

satisfaction of Defendants’ Restitution Obligation, the Court 

should direct that such funds be transferred to the Monitor for 

disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above;

5. The Court should order Defendants to pay a civil monetary 

penalty in the following manner:

a. to pay jointly and severally, in the amount of $76,675,782.00 

(“CMP Obligation”). If the CMP Obligation is not paid 

immediately, post-judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP 

Obligation beginning on the date of entry of any Court Order and 

shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on 

the date of the Court’s Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961;

b. The Court should direct that Defendants 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 payment shall be made payable 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 24 of 27 PageID 2310
- 25 - 

to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and sent to the 

following address: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

HQ Room 181 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

(405) 954-6569 (office) 

(405) 954-1620 (fax)

9-AMC-AR-CFTC@faa.gov

If payment by electronic funds transfer is chosen, Defendants shall 

be directed to contact Marie Thorne, 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; 

6. The Court should order that the Commission’s acceptance of 

partial payment of Defendants’ Restitution Obligation or CMP Obligation is 

not a waiver of Defendants’ obligation to make further payments or a waiver 

of the Commission’s right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance;

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 25 of 27 PageID 2311
- 26 - 

7. The Court should lift the asset freeze contained in its Order on 

Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 73) and order that such funds be transferred to 

the NFA for distribution to the pool participants identified by the Commission;

and

8. The Court should order Defendants provide written notice to the 

Commission of any change of telephone number or mailing address within ten 

calendar days of the change to the following address: Robert Howell, Deputy 

Director, 77 West Jackson Blvd, Suite 800, Chicago, IL, 60606.2

NOTICE TO PARTIES 

“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [a report and

recommendation], a party may serve and file specific written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A party

may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served

with a copy.” Id. A party’s failure to serve and file specific objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations alters review by the district judge and

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, including waiver

of the right to challenge anything to which no specific objection was made. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

2 The Court should also decline to retain jurisdiction over this action to ensure 

compliance with the forthcoming Order on Default Judgment and any motion 

by Defendants to modify or be relieved from the terms of the Order. 

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 26 of 27 PageID 2312
- 27 -

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on September 11, 2023.

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 6:20-cv-01657-CEM-RMN Document 187 Filed 09/11/23 Page 27 of 27 PageID 2313