UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

JOHN AARONS
v.
CFTC Docket No. 00-R049
INVESTORS TRADING GROUP, L.C. ORDER PURSUANT TO
DELEGATED AUTHORITY

Respondent Investors Trading Group, L.C. ("ITG") seeks interlocutory review of an Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint due to complainant Aarons's failure to comply with the requirements of Section 14(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"). Respondent also seeks a stay of the proceeding pending Commission consideration of its application for review. Complainant opposes the application for review on both procedural and substantive grounds. He does not oppose respondent's motion for a stay.

With limited exceptions, certification by the ALJ is a necessary step in seeking interlocutory review. To obtain review when a presiding officer has declined to certify a ruling, the moving party must first establish that the failure to certify amounts to an abuse of discretion. Cf. In re Volume Investors Corp., [1986-1987 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 23,132 (CFTC July 8, 1986). Here, respondent failed to even request certification from the ALJ. Moreover, the circumstances that it cites do not establish the type of extraordinary circumstances that justify immediate review. See, e.g., Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., [1994-1996 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 26,731 at 44,014 (CFTC July 1, 1996)1

Accordingly, respondent's application for review is denied and its motion for stay is dismissed as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.2

Edson G. Case
Deputy General Counsel
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Dated: June 30, 2000


1 Respondent claims that the application of an appropriate interpretation of Haekal v. Refco, Inc., [1996-1998 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 27,162 (CFTC Sept. 25, 1997), rev'd in part sub nom. Haekal v. CFTC, 198 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1999), to the circumstances of this case would require dismissal of the action. Haekal itself, however, suggests that complainant would be given an opportunity to file the bond required by Section 14(c). In these circumstances, immediate review is not warranted.

2 By the Commission pursuant to delegated authority. 17 C.F.R. 12.408(a)(1).