Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 35 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

ATLANTA DIVISION 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID WAYNE MAYER, SILVER 

STAR FX, LLC D/B/A SILVER 

STAR LIVE, AND SILVER STAR 

LIVE SOFTWARE, LLC, 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

1:20-cv-02476-JPB 

Final Default Judgment, Permanent Injunction, Restitution and Order 

On June 11, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission” or “CFTC”) filed its Complaint [Doc. 1] in the above-captioned 

action against David Wayne Mayer (“Mayer”), Silver Star Live FX d/b/a Silver 

Star Live (“SSL”) and Silver Star Live Software LLC (“SSLS”) (collectively 

“Defendants”) seeking injunctive and other equitable relief for violations of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 1-26, and Commission 

Regulations (“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. §§ 1-190. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 35 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Complaint alleges that from at least July 2018 through March 2019 

(“Relevant Period”), Mayer worked as a “Master Trader” for SSL and its successor 

entity, SSLS. Both SSL and SSLS were unregistered Commodity Trading 

Advisors (“CTAs”) that purported to sell a fully automated retail foreign currency 

(“forex”) trading software system (“Forex Trading System”). Mayer, the creator of 

the Forex Trading System sold by SSL and SSLS, defrauded members of the 

public (“Clients”) by fraudulently soliciting them to trade forex through accounts 

managed by the Forex Trading System. Mayer, using the pseudonym 

“Quicksilver” and acting as an unregistered Associated Person (“AP”), solicited 

Clients through videos posted online and on social media accounts, as well as at inperson marketing events. The solicitations contained material misrepresentations 

and omissions in that they: (1) repeatedly misrepresented Mayer’s qualifications 

and trading experience; and (2) misrepresented the Forex Trading System’s 

performance history and expected trading profits based on live trading in Mayer’s 

own account and failed to disclose that Mayer never opened a live trading account 

using the Forex Trading System. 

As further alleged, approximately 10,000 Clients purchased access to the 

Forex Trading System from SSL and/or SSLS. Many of these Clients 

subsequently paid a monthly subscription fee to maintain ongoing access to the 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 3 of 35 

Forex Trading System. Some Clients became “Affiliates” of SSL and/or SSLS. 

These Affiliates marketed the Forex Trading System to additional Clients and 

received associated credits and/or referral fees from SSL and/or SSLS. Ultimately, 

SSL and SSLS received at least $3 million from Clients during the Relevant 

Period. Defendants made no attempt to determine whether any of these Clients 

were eligible contract participants (“ECPs”), and many, if not all, of the SSL and 

SSLS Clients were not ECPs. 

According to the Complaint, through this fraudulent marketing of and 

solicitation for the Forex Trading System, Mayer, SSL and SSLS engaged, are 

engaging or are about to engage in acts and practices that violate certain anti-fraud 

and registration provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission 

Regulations, including 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), (C), 6k(3), 6o(1)(A), (B) and 17 

C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3). Mayer also violated CFTC registration provisions, 

including 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 5.3(a)(3)(ii). 

The Complaint also alleges that Mayer is liable as a control person for 

SSLS’s violations of the Act and Regulations pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) and 

that SSLS is liable as principal for Defendants’ violations because Mayer’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations occurred within the course and scope of his 

employment, agency or office pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 1.2. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 4 of 35 

The Complaint seeks to enjoin Defendants’ alleged unlawful acts and 

practices, to compel their compliance with the Act and Regulations and to enjoin 

them from engaging in any commodity or forex-related activities. In addition, the 

Complaint seeks civil monetary penalties, restitution and remedial ancillary relief. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The Commission filed its Complaint on June 11, 2020. [Doc. 1]. It 

transmitted copies of the Complaint and the summonses to counsel for SSL and 

SSLS, along with requests for waivers of service, on June 12, 2020. [Docs. 3, 4]. 

CFTC served Mayer with the Complaint and summons on June 18, 2020. [Doc. 9]. 

Through counsel, SSL and SSLS waived service on June 29, 2020. [Docs. 12, 13]. 

Because Defendants have not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the 

Complaint, the Commission applied for entries of default on August 31, 2020. 

[Doc. 17]. The Clerk entered default as to all Defendants. The Commission has 

now submitted its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Permanent Injunction, 

Restitution, Civil Monetary Penalties and Ancillary Equitable Relief Against 

Defendants (“Motion”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), as well as a supporting 

Memorandum of Law with an attached declaration and exhibits (“Memorandum”). 

[Docs. 21, 22]. 

The Court has carefully considered the Complaint, the allegations of which 

are well-pleaded and hereby taken as true, the Motion and the Memorandum. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 5 of 35 

Being fully advised in the premises, the Court hereby: 

GRANTS the Commission’s Motion and enters the following Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Law finding Defendants liable as to all violations as 

alleged in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court now issues the following Order 

which determines that Defendants violated 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(2)(A), 6b(a)(2)(C), 

6k(3), 6o(1)(A), 6o(1)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3), that Mayer violated 7 

U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) and 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 5.3(a)(3)(ii), and imposes 

on Defendants a permanent injunction, an order to pay restitution and civil 

monetary penalties. 

III. FINDINGS OF FACT 

A. The Parties 

1. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and 

enforcement of the Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. The CFTC 

maintains its principal office at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street N.W., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

2. Defendant David Wayne Mayer is an individual currently residing in 

Roswell, Georgia. During the Relevant Period, Mayer was a resident of Boynton 

Beach, Florida. He was a “Master Trader” of SSL and acted as both a “Master 

Trader” and a founding Member of SSLS. Mayer was primarily responsible for: 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 6 of 35 

(1) creating the Forex Trading System sold by SSL and SSLS, which engaged in 

discretionary trading on behalf of Clients; and (2) marketing the Forex Trading 

System on behalf of SSL and SSLS. 

3. Defendant Silver Star FX, LLC d/b/a Silver Star Live is a limited 

liability company organized and operated pursuant to the laws of the state of New 

Mexico. SSL has never been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

4. Defendant Silver Star Live Software, LLC is a limited liability 

company organized and operated pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida. 

Mayer’s home address in Boynton Beach, Florida, was listed as the corporate and 

mailing address for SSLS of which Mayer was a one-third owner. SSLS has never 

been registered with the Commission in any capacity. 

B. Defendants Solicited Clients to Purchase and Trade Using the 

Forex Trading System 

5. During the Relevant Period, SSL and SSLS marketed the Forex 

Trading System under various names and described it as a fully automated “Forex 

autotrader.” The Forex Trading System was designed to trade retail forex offered 

or entered into on a leveraged or margined basis. By virtue of this Forex Trading 

System, SSL and SSLS exercised discretionary trading authority over retail 

Clients’ forex accounts. 

6. From at least July 2018 to March 2019, on behalf of SSL and later 

SSLS, Mayer solicited Clients to open discretionary trading accounts (or 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 7 of 35 

supervised other persons who did so) and offered to trade Clients’ retail forex 

accounts through the Forex Trading System. The Forex Trading System was 

marketed under multiple different names during the Relevant Period, reflecting 

Mayer’s continual updating of its software. This software purported to trade 

multiple currency pairs, automatically entering and exiting trades without Client 

intervention. 

7. SSL’s website, silverstarlive.com, included the slogan “Our Trades, 

Your Account.” On this website, SSL described its multi-level marketing 

program, encouraging users to become Affiliates of SSL. A web page explained 

that as an Affiliate, 

[Y]ou can sell directly to your customers using your personal 

replicated website. When your customer orders from your SSL 

website, you will receive a 50% commission based on the Customer 

Volume (CV) of the product. CV is an amazing $for$. For example, 

if your customer purchases the $199 pkg you will earn $100 if $99 

you earn $50. . . . With only 2 customers placing an order for the 

same service as you or higher . . . you receive a 50% monthly retail 

bonus making your service FREE . . . . 

8. In October 2018, Mayer and other SSL officers and employees 

transitioned to SSLS. The business of SSLS was identical to SSL, in that it sold 

the Forex Trading System and implemented a similar multi-level marketing 

scheme to sell the system. Additionally, SSLS created a new website, 

silverstarlivesoftware.com, over which Mayer exercised control. 

9. Throughout the Relevant Period, Mayer participated in multiple 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 8 of 35 

marketing videos and at least two in-person presentations, either alone and/or with 

other employees, officers and Affiliates of SSL and SSLS. Mayer was touted in 

these marketing presentations, and other marketing materials, as a “Master Trader” 

and the “brain” of the Forex Trading System. The videos featuring Mayer were 

posted widely on multiple websites, including silverstarlive.com and 

silverstarlivesoftware.com, as well as on YouTube, Vimeo and social media pages 

maintained by SSL and SSLS. Additionally, Affiliates of SSL and SSLS 

incorporated portions of the same videos and marketing information in their own 

internet and social media platforms as they tried to expand sales to their own 

Clients. 

10. In promotional videos, Mayer made the following statements 

describing the Forex Trading System: it is “as close to a ‘set it and forget it’ type 

of trading system as you can get”; “the average Joe can just leave it alone and just 

let the software do its thing”; and “you don’t have to have knowledge of trading to 

do this. Once you set the account up, it runs for you.” Similarly, others at SSL 

and SSLS described the Forex Trading System as “95% hands-off” after initial set 

up. 

11. Officers, employees and Affiliates of SSL and SSLS instructed 

Clients to open retail forex accounts at retail foreign exchange dealers, fund the 

accounts and link the accounts to the Forex Trading System. Clients paid an 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 9 of 35 

initial purchase price of between $99 and $499 to access the Forex Trading System 

from their linked account, and a monthly subscription fee of between $100 and 

$200 to maintain access. 

12. During the Relevant Period, Client funds totaling $198,143.03 were 

deposited into SSL bank accounts, while client funds totaling $3,712,035.93 were 

deposited into an SSLS bank account. In addition, during the Relevant Period, 

Mayer transferred a total of $446,000 derived from the business of SSLS to 

Quicksilver Trading. During the Relevant Period, SSL and SSLS had more than 

9,000 Clients. 

13. At times, Mayer also provided trading advice for users who wished 

to enter manual trades on the Forex Trading System. For example, in 

approximately October 2018, Mayer began participating in weekly live interactive 

webinars called “Saturdays with Quicksilver.” The videos were posted to an SSL 

website, silverstarlive.com/training. In one such webinar, Mayer provided advice 

on manual trading, explaining when a user should “sell” and when a user should 

“buy.” He also offered advice on the amount of leverage that manual users should 

consider incorporating. 

14. Defendants made no attempt to determine whether any of these 

Clients were ECPs, and many, if not all, of the SSL and/or SSLS Clients were not 

ECPs. 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 10 of 35 

15. At no time during the Relevant Period was Mayer, SSL or SSLS 

registered with the Commission in any capacity or eligible for an exemption from 

the requirement to register. 

C. Defendants Misrepresented Mayer’s Investment Trading Experience 

When They Solicited Members of the Public to Trade Using the Forex 

Trading System 

16. Throughout the Relevant Period, Mayer highlighted his allegedly 

extensive trading experience and expertise in SSL and SSLS online videos, inperson presentations and other marketing materials. He did so in order to recruit 

paying Clients to purchase the Forex Trading Systems from SSL and/or SSLS. 

Mayer rarely, if ever, used his real name in SSL or SSLS marketing materials; 

instead, he was known by his pseudonym, “Quicksilver.” 

17. Mayer made the following specific representations to actual and 

potential Clients of SSL and SSLS during the Relevant Period: 

• Mayer had 20 years of trading experience; 

• Mayer had traded for a Wall Street hedge fund; 

• During his time at the hedge fund, Mayer was “in charge of 

trading” for a pension fund for employees of a large 

municipality, a fund worth “hundreds of millions of dollars”; 

and 

• Mayer “tripled the account every month,” ensuring large 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 11 of 35 

investment returns for the client and hedge fund. 

18. Officers, employees and Affiliates of SSL and SSLS, who similarly 

promoted and marketed the Forex Trading System that Mayer created, repeated 

Mayer’s representations about his experience in their own online and in-person 

marketing presentations throughout the Relevant Period. 

19. Mayer’s representations about his trading experience, as described in 

Finding 17 above were false. 

20. On September 12, 2019, Mayer provided sworn testimony before the 

CFTC. During his testimony, Mayer admitted that he had no actual trading 

experience and his statement that he had “been trading for a little over 20 years 

now” was false. 

21. Mayer also admitted in his sworn testimony that his previous 

statements regarding his experience working at the hedge fund were false. More 

specifically, Mayer admitted that he never traded any accounts at the hedge fund, 

including any accounts belonging to a municipal pension fund worth “hundreds of 

millions of dollars,” and any representations he made about his performance there 

pertained to so-called “demo accounts” that involved no actual trading. 

Accordingly, Mayer’s representation that as a result of his efforts, “we’re tripling 

the account every month,” was also false. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 12 of 35 

D. Defendants Misrepresented Trading Results When They Solicited 

Members of the Public to Trade Using the Forex Trading System 

22. During the Relevant Period, Mayer also participated in numerous 

online videos and in-person presentations in which he purported to show how the 

Forex Trading System worked. In these presentations, Mayer purported to display 

the results of trading activity from his “live account,” which evidenced large and 

immediate returns on his investment. For example, in a video posted publicly in 

multiple locations including Vimeo, Mayer displayed his computer screen and 

stated, “let me shoot you over a shot of my live account . . . this has been running 

since yesterday.” Mayer noted that this live account started with $10,000 and 

generated a profit of $1,568.69 in “one day.” Mayer repeated that the trades on the 

screen were real, saying “this is my live account right now.” 

23. In another marketing video, Mayer purported to display the results of 

a $5,000 investment over one month, which similarly demonstrated a profit over a 

short time period. Mayer stated that when using the Forex Trading System, “you 

always have a net gain on your account, . . . and thus far, since it has been live, it 

has not had any losses.” Similarly, Mayer stated in a separate video, “for sixteen 

years in a row, every month I’ve tripled my account.” 

24. In multiple marketing presentations, Mayer alleged that such high 

returns in these live accounts were possible because his “one-of-a-kind” software 

used “artificial intelligence” that created “smart trades” of foreign currency pairs. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 13 of 35 

This “smart trading” process minimized trade losses by quickly trading out of 

losing trades. Mayer repeatedly stated that, on average, the foreign currency trades 

made by the Forex Trading System would result in a “win” ninety percent of the 

time and would mitigate losses on the remaining ten percent of its trades. Mayer 

said, we “win 80 percent [of trades] on a bad month” and “on good months, it’ll 

win 90, 92, 93 percent.” 

25. Similarly, positive performance results were also posted on websites 

advertising access to an SSLS webinar prominently featuring Mayer: 

• The website at markethackingsecrets.com, stated: 

“Here’s how 772 newbies are using this 

breakthrough technology to get 10 to 30 percent 

gains every month in a $5.3 trillion per day 

market.” 

• The website at sslwebinar.com/registration 

promoted access to an SSLS webinar on 

November 7, 2018, and similarly stated: 

“Here’s How 814 ‘Newbies’ Are Using This 

Breakthrough Technology To Get 10-30% 

Gains Every Month In A $5.3 Trillion Dollar 

Per Day Market!” 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 14 of 35 

26. Mayer’s representations, as described in Findings 22-25 above, were 

false. 

27. Mayer admitted in testimony before the CFTC that he never used the 

Forex Trading System to trade a live account, using only so-called “demo 

accounts” to simulate trading activity. Mayer also admitted in testimony that 

representations he made regarding the performance of the Forex Trading System 

were based on the trading performance he observed in these demo accounts. 

28. Defendants failed to disclose to actual or potential Clients that Mayer 

had never traded a live account, and therefore: (1) Mayer had never earned any 

actual profits; (2) Mayer never achieved ten to thirty percent gains; and (3) Mayer 

never “won” eighty to ninety percent of trades. 

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

A. Defendants’ Failure to Properly Answer Warrants Entry of Default 

Judgment 

Entry of default judgment is committed to the discretion of the district court. 

Hamm v. DeKalb Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1985). While a defaulting 

party is deemed to have admitted all well-pleaded factual allegations, a court must 

investigate the legal sufficiency of the allegations and ensure that the complaint 

states a plausible claim for relief. Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 

1267, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005). 

After the Court determines that a default judgment should be entered, “it 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 15 of 35 

then determines the amount and character of the recovery that should be awarded.” 

Pitts ex. rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1356 (S.D. Ga. 

2004) (citing Patray v. Nw. Publ’g, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 865, 868 (S.D. Ga. 1996)). 

While plaintiff must establish that the amount of damages requested is reasonable 

under the circumstances, the Court can “take evidence when necessary, or compute 

them from the facts of record.” Id. 

The well-pleaded facts of the Complaint establish Defendants’ liability, and 

the evidence submitted by the Commission with the Complaint establish the 

appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. 

B. Jurisdiction and Venue 

This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 

question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (jurisdiction over civil actions 

commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly authorized to sue by 

Act of Congress). 7 U.S.C. §§ 2(c)(2)(C), 13a-l(a) authorize the Commission to 

seek injunctive relief against any person whenever it shall appear that such person 

has engaged, is engaging or is about to engage in any act or practice that violates 

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

Venue properly lies with the Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) because 

Defendants resided in this District, Defendants transacted business in this District 

and the acts and practices in violation of the Act occurred within this District. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 16 of 35 

C. The Defendants Violated 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 5.2(b)(1), (3). 

7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) prohibits any person or entity from cheating or 

defrauding another person in connection with commodity futures or swaps. 7 

U.S.C. § 6b applies to off-exchange leveraged or margined forex transactions that 

are entered into with non- eligible contract participants and do not result in actual 

delivery within two days, as if they were futures contracts. 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2(c)(2)(C)(iv). 

17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1)-(3) makes it unlawful for any person to cheat or 

defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud another person by use of the mails or by any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or willfully to deceive or attempt 

to deceive another person by any means whatsoever in connection with any forex 

transaction. 

To establish liability under 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a), the Commission must prove 

that: (1) a misrepresentation, false or misleading statement or deceptive omission 

was made; (2) with scienter; and (3) the misrepresentation, false or misleading 

statement or deceptive omission was material. Commodity Futures Trading 

Comm’n v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., 310 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2002). 

1. Defendants Made Misrepresentations and Omissions 

Defendants falsely represented to Clients, on their websites and in social 

media, that: (1) Mayer had 20 years of trading experience; (2) he had traded for a 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 17 of 35 

Wall Street hedge fund; (3) at the hedge fund, he was in charge of trading funds 

belonging to a municipal pension fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars; and 

(4) his statements regarding past performance and potential future profits were 

based on actual trading in live accounts. All of these statements are false. Further, 

Defendants failed to disclose to actual or potential Clients that Mayer had never 

traded a live account, and therefore: (1) Mayer had never earned any actual 

profits; (2) Mayer never achieved ten to thirty percent gains; and (3) Mayer never 

“won” eighty to ninety percent of trades. These omissions were deceptive. 

2. Defendants Acted with Scienter 

Defendants acted with the requisite scienter to violate 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2). 

Scienter requires proof that a defendant committed the alleged wrongful acts 

intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. See Commodity Futures 

Trading Comm’n v. Noble Metals Int’l, 67 F.3d 766, 774 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding 

that scienter is established when defendants act intentionally or with “careless 

disregard”). The Commission can establish scienter by showing that a defendant 

“knew the representations were false and were calculated to cause harm or by 

showing that the representations were made with a reckless disregard for their truth 

or falsity.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Nat’l Inv. Consultants, Inc., 

No. C 05-02641, 2005 WL 2072105, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26,2005) (citing 

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Noble Wealth Data Info. Servs., Inc., 90 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 18 of 35 

F. Supp. 2d 676, 686 (D. Md. 2000)). To prove that conduct is intentional, the 

Commission must demonstrate that it is “intentional as opposed to accidental.” 

Lawrence v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n ,759 F.2d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 

1985). 

Here, Mayer knew he possessed neither the trading experience nor the 

expertise he represented to Clients. Significantly, Mayer admitted to making many 

of these misrepresentations in sworn testimony before Commission staff. 

Accordingly, these representations lack an adequate basis in fact and are at best 

reckless. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Heffernan, 245 F. Supp. 2d 

1276, 1294 (S.D. Ga. 2003) (addressing claim that it was “possible to earn $500 

per day” using a trading system was based on speculation, not actual results, and 

therefore was fraudulent). Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants acted with 

scienter. 

3. Defendants’ Misrepresentations and Omissions were Material 

Whether a misrepresentation or omission has been made is determined 

objectively, through examination of the “overall message” and the “common 

understanding of the information conveyed.” R.J. Fitzgerald, 310 F.3d at 1329. A 

statement or omission is material if “a reasonable investor would consider it 

important in deciding whether to make an investment.” Id. at 1328-29. 

“Misrepresentations concerning profit and risk go to the heart of a customer’s 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 19 of 35 

investment decision and are therefore material as a matter of law.” Noble Wealth 

Data Info. Servs., Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d at 686 (citing Commodity Futures Trading 

Comm’n v. Commonwealth Fin. Grp., 874 F. Supp. 1345, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 1994)). 

Defendants’ misrepresentations go to the very heart of a Client’s decision 

whether to invest. Because there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable 

investor would consider Defendants’ misrepresentations about Mayer’s 

background, trading acumen and trading success important in making an 

investment decision, Defendants made material misrepresentations. 

D. Defendants Violated 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B) 

7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B) makes it unlawful for a CTA to use any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce to (A) employ any device, scheme or 

artifice to defraud a client or prospective client; or (B) engage in a transaction, 

practice or course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit upon a client or 

prospective client. 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B) applies to CTAs engaging in retail 

forex transactions pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(ii), (vii). 

7 U.S.C. § 1a(12) defines a CTA as any person who, for compensation or 

profit, engages in the business of advising others as to the value or advisability of 

trading in, among other things, futures contracts or retail forex transactions. 

Similarly, 17 C.F.R. § 5.1(e)(1) further defines a CTA as “any person who 

exercises discretionary trading authority or obtains written authorization to 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 20 of 35 

exercise discretionary trading authority over any account for or on behalf of any 

person that is not an [ECP] in connection with retail forex transactions.” 

During the Relevant Period, SSL and SSLS acted as CTAs by, for 

compensation or profit, engaging in the business of advising others, soliciting 

clients and prospective clients and exercising discretionary trading authority over 

accounts for or on behalf of persons, including persons who are not ECPs, in 

connection with retail forex transactions. Mayer acted as an AP of a CTA when he 

solicited clients or prospective clients for discretionary accounts or supervised 

others engaged in such conduct. 

Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions in violation of 7 

U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A)-(C) also establish liability for fraud under 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6o(1)(A), (B). See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Aurifex 

Commodities Research Co., No. 1:06–CV–166, 2008 WL 299002, at *5-6 (W.D. 

Mich. Feb. 1, 2008). 

E. Defendants Violated 7 U.S.C. § 6k(3) 

7 U.S.C. § 6k(3) prohibits persons from being associated with a CTA as a 

partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent (or any person occupying a similar 

status or performing similar functions) in any capacity which involves: (i) the 

solicitation of a client’s or prospective client’s discretionary account; or (ii) the 

supervision of any person or persons so engaged, unless such person is registered 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 21 of 35 

with the Commission. 

7 U.S.C. § 6k(3) also prohibits a CTA from permitting a person associated 

with it to become or remain associated with it, in any such capacity, if the CTA 

knew or should have known that such person was not registered as an Associated 

Person. 

During the Relevant Period, Mayer acted as an unregistered AP. SSL and 

SSLS permitted Mayer to become or remain associated with them, knowing that 

Mayer should have been registered as an AP, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(3). 

F. Mayer Violated Section 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) and 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 3.12(a) and 5.3(a)(3)(ii) 

7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) prohibits any person, unless registered with 

the Commission, from soliciting or accepting orders from any person who is not an 

ECP in connection with retail forex transactions. 17 C.F.R. § 3.12(a) prohibits a 

person from being associated with a CTA, unless the person is registered as an AP 

of the CTA. 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(ii) states that, in connection with retail forex 

transactions, any natural person must register with the Commission as an AP of a 

CTA if they are associated with a CTA as a partner, officer, employee, consultant or 

agent (or any natural person occupying a similar status or performing similar 

functions) in any capacity which involves: (i) the solicitation of a client’s or 

prospective client’s discretionary account; or (ii) the supervision of any person so 

engaged. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 22 of 35 

Mayer was associated with SSL and SSLS, both CTAs, as a partner, officer, 

employee, consultant and/or agent in a capacity which involved the solicitation of a 

client’s or prospective client’s discretionary account. Mayer, through video 

presentations, live events, websites and other promotional materials, solicited nonECPs to enter into retail forex transactions. As such, Mayer was required to 

register with the Commission as an AP of a CTA. By failing to register with the 

Commission as an AP of a CTA, Mayer violated 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa) 

and 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 5.3(a)(3)(ii). 

G. Principal Agent Liability 

7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 provide that a principal may be 

liable for its agent’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Liability under 7 

U.S.C. § 2(a)(l)(B) and 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 requires consent to the agency by both 

principal and agent, and the control of the agent by the principal. Commodity 

Futures Trading Comm’n v. Gibraltar, 575 F.3d 1180, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Both requirements are met here. 

Mayer engaged in the conduct described herein within the course and scope 

of his employment with both SSL and SSLS. Mayer acted as a “Master Trader” 

for SSL, and as both a “Master Trader” and a Co-owner of SSLS. The facts 

alleged in the Complaint occurred within the scope of his employment with SSL 

and SSLS. Accordingly, Mayer, SSL and SSLS consented to the agency 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 23 of 35 

relationship, and both SSL and SSLS controlled Mayer’s conduct. Therefore, SSL 

and SSLS are liable for the acts, omissions and failures of Mayer in violation of 7 

U.S.C. §§ 6b, 4o. 

H. Control Person Liability 

7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) provides that “any person who, directly or indirectly, 

controls any person who has violated any provision” of the Act or Regulations 

“may be held liable for such violation in any action brought by the Commission to 

the same extent as such controlled person” where the controlling person “did not 

act in good faith or knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the act or acts 

constituting the violation.” 

To demonstrate control person liability, the Commission must prove that the 

control person had actual or constructive knowledge of the core activities that 

made up the violation at issue and allowed them to continue. R.J. Fitzgerald, 310 

F.3d at 1334 (citing JCC, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 63 F.3d 

1557, 1568 (11th Cir. 1995)). 

Evidence that a defendant is an officer, founder, principal or the authorized 

signatory on the company’s bank accounts indicates the power to control a 

company. In re Spiegel, CFTC No. 85-19, 1988 WL 232212, at *8 (Jan. 12, 1988). 

The Commission must also show that a defendant possessed specific control, 

which is “the power or ability to control the specific transaction or activity upon 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 24 of 35 

which the primary violation was predicated.” Monieson v. Commodity Futures 

Trading Comm’n, 996 F.2d 852, 860 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

As found above, Mayer was a “Master Trader” and Co-owner of SSLS. 

Mayer created the SSLS entity using his home address as the official address for 

SSLS. Mayer created the SSLS website and was responsible for the site’s 

contents. Additionally, Mayer was responsible for creating and marketing the 

Forex Trading System sold by SSLS. He was also a signatory on SSLS’s bank 

accounts. Therefore, Mayer possessed both general control over the operation of 

SSLS and specific control over the actions of SSLS that are alleged in the 

Complaint. As such, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) of the Act, Mayer is liable for 

SSLS’s violations as a control person. 

V. REMEDIES 

A. Permanent Injunction 

Based upon and in connection with the conduct described above, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Defendants are permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly: 

1. Cheating or defrauding, or attempting to cheat or defraud, other 

persons; issuing or causing to be issued false reports; and willfully deceiving or 

attempting to deceive other person in or in connection with any order to make, or 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 25 of 35 

the making of, any contract of sale of any commodity for future delivery, or forex 

contract that is made, or to be made, for or on behalf of, or with, any other person 

in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a)(2)(A), (C) and 17 C.F.R. § 5.2(b)(1), (3); 

2. Using the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce to directly or indirectly employ a device, scheme or artifice to defraud 

clients or prospective clients, or engage in transactions, practices or courses of 

business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon clients or prospective clients in 

violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o(1)(A), (B); 

3. Being associated with a CTA as a partner, officer, employee, 

consultant or agent (or any person occupying a similar status or performing similar 

functions) in any capacity which involves: (i) the solicitation of a client’s or 

prospective client’s discretionary account; or (ii) the supervision of any person or 

persons so engaged, unless registered with the Commission, in violation of 7 

U.S.C. § 6k(3); or, while acting as a CTA, permitting a person not registered as an 

AP to associate with the CTA; 

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

term is defined in 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40)); 

5. Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as 

that term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 1.3) for Defendant’s own personal accounts or 

for any account in which they have a direct or indirect interest; 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 26 of 35 

6. Having any commodity interests traded on their behalf; 

7. 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; 

8. Soliciting, receiving or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling any commodity interests; 

9. 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 registration with the Commission except as 

provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9); and/or 

10. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in 17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)), 

agent or any other officer or employee of any person registered, or exempted from 

registration, or required to be registered with the Commission except as provided 

for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9). 

Based upon and in connection with the conduct described above, pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, Mayer is further permanently restrained, enjoined and prohibited 

from directly or indirectly: 

11. Soliciting or accepting orders from any person who is not an ECP in 

connection with retail forex transactions without being registered with the 

Commission, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(C)(iii)(I)(aa); 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 27 of 35 

12. Being associated with a CTA unless registered with the Commission 

as an AP, in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 3.12(a); and 

13. In connection with retail forex transactions, being associated with a 

CTA as a partner, officer, employee, consultant or agent and acting in any capacity 

which involves: (i) the solicitation of a client’s or prospective client’s 

discretionary account; or (ii) the supervision of any person or person so engaged,in 

violation of 17 C.F.R. § 5.3(a)(3)(ii). 

B. Restitution 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(3)(A) authorizes the CFTC to seek, and the Court to 

impose, equitable remedies for violations of the Act, including “restitution to 

persons who have sustained losses proximately caused by such violation (in the 

amount of such losses).” Restitution exists to “restore the status quo” and reflects 

“the difference between what defendants obtained and the amount customers 

received back . . . .” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Driver, 877 F. Supp. 

2d 968, 981 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (entering default judgment and ordering restitution 

equal to the amount of money solicited minus the amount returned to customers). 

Where, as here, controlling person liability is established, imposition of joint 

and several liability is appropriate. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. 

Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 21 F. Supp. 3d 1317, 1350-53 (S.D. Fla. 2014) 

(imposing joint and several liability and damages against both controlling persons 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 28 of 35 

and corporate entity). Likewise, where principal-agent liability is established, 

imposition of joint and several liability is appropriate. See Commodity Futures 

Trading Comm’n v. Gutterman, No. 12–21047–CIV, 2012 WL 2413082, at *9-11 

(S.D. Fla. June 26, 2012) (default judgment entered finding individual and 

corporate defendants jointly and severally liable where principal-agent liability 

under Section 2(a)(1)(b) applies). 

Bank records for both SSL and SSLS establish that Defendants’ conduct 

caused clients to incur losses totaling $3,910,178.96, which reflects the total funds 

Defendants fraudulently solicited for the purchase and licensing of the Forex 

Trading System. 

Defendants shall pay restitution in the following amounts (“Restitution 

Obligations”): (i) SSL in the amount of $198,143.03; and (ii) SSLS, jointly and 

severally with Mayer as a control person of SSLS, in the amount of $3,712,035.93. 

If the Restitution Obligations are not paid immediately, post-judgment 

interest shall accrue on the Restitution Obligations 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. 

To effect payment of the Restitution Obligations and the distribution of any 

restitution payments to Defendants’ clients, the Court appoints the National 

Futures Association (“NFA”) as Monitor (“Monitor”). The Monitor shall receive 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 29 of 35 

restitution payments from Defendants and 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 the 

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

Defendants shall make Restitution Obligation payments, and any postjudgment interest payments, under this Order to the Monitor in the name“Mayer / 

Silver Star Live FX LLC / Sliver Star Live Software LLC –Settlement/Restitution 

Fund” and shall 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, 300 South Riverside 

Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60606 under cover letterthat identifies the 

paying Defendant(s) and the name and docket number of this proceeding. The 

paying Defendant(s) shall simultaneously transmit copies of thecover 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. 

The Monitor shall oversee the Restitution Obligations and shall have the 

discretion to determine the manner of distribution of such funds in an equitable 

fashion to Defendants’ clients identified by the CFTC or may defer distribution until 

such time as the Monitor deems appropriate. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 30 of 35 

Defendants shall cooperate with the Monitor as appropriate to provide such 

information as the Monitor deems necessary and appropriate to identify 

Defendants’ clients to whom the Monitor, in its sole discretion, may determine to 

include in any plan for distribution of any Restitution Obligation payments. 

Defendants shall 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 Obligations. 

The Monitor shall provide the CFTC at the beginning of each calendar year 

with a report detailing the disbursement of funds to Defendants’ clients during the 

previous year. The Monitor shall 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. 

The amounts payable to each client shall not limit the ability of any client 

from proving that a greater amount is owed from Defendants or any other person 

or entity, and nothing herein shall be construed in any way to limit or abridge the 

rights of any client exist under state or common law. 

Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each client of 

Defendants who suffered a loss is explicitly made an intended third-party 

beneficiary of this Order and may seek to enforce obedience of this Order to obtain 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 31 of 35 

satisfaction of any portion of the restitution that has not been paid by Defendants to 

ensure continued compliance with any provision of this Order and to hold 

Defendants in contempt for any violations of any provision of this Order. 

To the extent that any funds accrue to the U.S. Treasury for satisfaction of 

Defendants’ Restitution Obligations, such funds shall be transferred to the Monitor 

for disbursement in accordance with the procedures set forth above. 

C. Civil Monetary Penalty 

7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 and 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 permit the Court to impose civil 

penalties (“CMP”) for violations of the Act or Regulations in the amount of not 

more than the greater of $182,031 or triple the monetary gain to the person for each 

violation. 

Conduct that violates the core provisions of the Act should be considered 

extremely serious. JCC, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 63 F.3d 

1557, 1571 (11th Cir. 1995). Severe sanctions are particularly warranted when a 

defendant repeatedly violates the Act, and the Commission may, as it did in this 

case, allege multiple violations in a single count. See In re Slusser, CFTC 

Docket No. 94-14, 1999 WL 507574, at *18 (July 19, 1999); Commodity Futures 

Trading Comm’n v. Levy, 541 F.3d 1102, 1112 (11th Cir. 2008). CMPs should 

“reflect both the abstract or general seriousness of each violation . . . and should be 

sufficiently high to deter future violations,” which means that CMPs should make 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 32 of 35 

it financially detrimental to a defendant to fail to comply with the Act and 

Regulations. In re Grossfeld, CFTC Docket No. 89-23, 1996 WL 709219, at *12 

(Dec. 10, 1996), aff’d, 137 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Because Defendants committed repeated violations of a core provision of the 

Act by defrauding more than 9000 clients out of millions of dollars, the 

Commission asks that the Court order Defendants to pay significant civil monetary 

penalties (“CMP Obligations”). The CMP Obligations represent the statutory 

maximum of three times the gain to each Defendant as a result of their violations. 

The Court concludes that: (1) the gain to SSL is $198,143.03; (2) the gain to SSLS 

is $3,266,035.93 (i.e., total gains to SSLS ($3,712,035.93) less funds Mayer 

transferred from SSLS to Quicksilver Trading ($446,000)); and (3) the gain to 

Mayer is $446,000 (i.e., the funds Mayer transferred from SSLS to Quicksilver 

Trading). Consequently, the Court Orders CMP Obligations in the following 

amounts: (1) SSL in the amount of $594,429.09; (2) SSLS in the amount of 

$9,798,107.79; and (3) Mayer in the amount of $1,338,000. 

Defendants shall pay the CMP Obligations immediately, and 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 this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

Defendants shall pay the CMP Obligations by electronic funds transfer, or 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 33 of 35 

by 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, the 

payment shall be made payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

and sent to the address below: 

MAC/ESC/AMK326 

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 is to be made by electronic funds transfer, Defendants shall 

contact Marie Thorne or her successor at the above address to receive payment 

instructions and shall fully comply with those instructions. Defendants shall 

accompany payment of the penalty with a cover letter that identifies Defendant and 

the name and docket number of the proceedings. Defendants shall simultaneously 

transmit copies of the cover letter and the form of payment to the Director, 

Division of Enforcement, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581, and the Chief, 

Office of Cooperative Enforcement, Division of Enforcement, at the same address. 

VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

Partial Satisfaction: Acceptance by the CFTC or the Monitor of any partial 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 34 of 35 

payment of Defendants’ Restitution Obligation and CMP Obligations shall not be 

deemed a waiver of his obligation to make further payments pursuant to this Order, 

or a waiver of the CFTC’s right to seek to compel payment of anyremaining 

balance. 

Cooperation: Defendants shall cooperate fully and expeditiously with the 

CFTC, including the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement, in this action, and in any 

current or future CFTC investigation or action related thereto. Defendants shall 

also cooperate in any investigation, civil litigation or administrative matter related 

to, or arising from, the subject matter of this action. 

Equitable Relief: The injunctive and equitable relief provisions of this 

Ordershall be binding upon Defendants and upon any persons who are acting in the 

capacity of agent, officer, employee, servant, attorney, successor and/or assign of 

Defendants, and upon any person acting in active concert or participation with 

Defendants who receives actual notice of this Order by personal service or 

otherwise. 

Notices: All notices required to be given to the Commission by any 

provision in this Order shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as 

follows: 

Richard A. Glaser 

Deputy Director 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-02476-JPB Document 25 Filed 07/27/21 Page 35 of 35 

Three Lafayette Centre1155 

21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

Continuing Jurisdiction of this Court: This Court shall retain jurisdiction of 

this case to assure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to 

this action. 

SO ORDERED this 27th the day of July, 2021. 

J. P. BOULEE 

United States District Judge 

_______________________ 

35