首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Securities Regulation: Commodity Exchange Act
【24h】

Securities Regulation: Commodity Exchange Act

机译:证券法规:《商品交易法》

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

For a discussion of the underlying facts, see the case summary for In re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation, 612 F.Supp.2d 376, 173 O.&G.R.550 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), supra. In this phase of the litigation, defendants Amaranth LLC ("Master Fund') and Amaranth Advisors, LLC ("Advisors") are still subject to the plaintiffs' vicarious liability claims. The Master Fund seeks to distribute some $75 million of its remaining $185 million in assets to investors and former employees. The plaintiffs object to the proposed transfer. The relationship of the Master Fund and Advisors was that the Advisors served as the Master Fund's "Trading Advisor" pursuant to various written agreements. The Master Fund ceased active operations in September 2006 and has distributed funds to investors since then. Four of those distributions, totalling nearly $2.2 billion were consummated prior to the initiation of this litigation. The plaintiffs seek to file a writ of attachment under FRCP 64 as to $72.8 million of the proposed $75 million distribution since they do not challenge $2.2 million in distributions to non-Amaranth employees. FRCP incorporates the state law of attachment, which in this case involves New York law. Under New York law, the issuance of an attachment order is discretionary once the party seeking the order shows a need and a likelihood of success. The plaintiffs have to show that more likely than not their vicarious liability claims under the CEA will succeed. The court determines that the claims against the Advisors is likely to succeed based on the allegations of the complaint and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hearings that .concluded that the lead natural gas trader for the Advisors manipulated NYMEX natural gas futures contracts. It is also likely that plaintiffs will be able to show that the Advisors acted as the agent for the Master Fund in making these manipulative trades. The court also believes that because the Master Fund is not qualified to do business in New York, the need for the order of attachment is quite strong.
机译:有关基本事实的讨论,请参见上文的In re Amaranth天然气商品诉讼案,案号612 F.Supp.2d 376,173 O.&G.R.550(S.D.N.Y. 2009)。在诉讼的这一阶段,被告Amaranth LLC(“ Master Fund”)和Amaranth Advisors,LLC(“ Advisors”)仍要承担原告的替代责任索赔,Master Fund希望在剩余的185美元中分配7500万美元。向投资者和前雇员支付了10,000万美元的资产。原告反对拟议的转让。大师基金和顾问的关系是,根据各种书面协议,顾问担任了大师基金的“交易顾问”。自2006年9月起已向投资者分配资金,其中四笔分配,总计近22亿美元,是在诉讼开始之前完成的,原告寻求根据FRCP 64提出依附令,其中拟议中的7,280万美元因为他们没有挑战向非-菜员工分配的220万美元,所以分配了7500万美元。本案中涉及纽约法。根据纽约州法律,一旦寻求命令的当事方显示出成功的必要性和可能性,就可以酌情发出扣押令。原告必须证明,根据CEA进行的替代责任索赔更有可能获得成功。法院基于投诉的指控和联邦能源管理委员会的听证会确定对顾问的索赔有可能成功,结论是顾问的主要天然气交易商操纵了NYMEX天然气期货合约。原告也很有可能能够证明顾问在进行这些操纵性交易中充当了母基金的代理人。法院还认为,由于母基金不具备在纽约开展业务的资格,因此对依附令的需求非常强烈。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号