UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
In the Matter of CFTC DOCKET NO. 95-1
WAYNE I. ELLIOTT, FRANCIS MARITOTE,
J. BRIAN SCHAER, and JONATHAN A. ORDER
The Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") seeks leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this appeal from the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") dismissal of the complaint. On September 11, 1996 the ALJ dismissed allegations against respondents Wayne I. Elliott, Francis Maritote, J. Brian Schaer, and Jonathan A. Sion of engaging in wash sales in violation of Section 4c(a)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act"), 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(A) (1994); executing noncompetitive trades in violation of Commission Rule 1.38(a), 17 C.F.R. § 1.38 (1996); and causing false prices to be reported in violation of Section 4c(a)(B) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(B) (1994).
The Division of Enforcement ("Division") filed a timely notice of appeal and a brief seeking review of the dismissal. The respondents have filed jointly an answering brief urging affirmance of the ALJ's dismissal. The CBOT has filed a motion seeking leave to appear in this proceeding as an amicus curiae with a brief in support of respondents.
A motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief must identify the interest of the movant and the reason why an amicus curiae brief is desirable. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 29. We haveaccepted amicus curiae briefs from contract markets in enforcement appeals involving exchange members when such briefs address substantive matters within the exchanges' expertise. See, e.g., In re Glass and Guttman, CFTC Docket No. 93-4 (Dec. 9, 1996); see also In re Three Eight Corp., CFTC Docket No. 88-33, 1991 CFTC LEXIS 385 (Oct. 16, 1991), and In re Angelo, CFTC Docket No. 89-5, 1991 CFTC LEXIS 386 (Oct. 16, 1991).
In declaring its interest in this proceeding, the CBOT argues that a reversal of the ALJ's decision would effectively prohibit certain legitimate trading practices currently utilized by its members. The CBOT also argues that the case involves significant issues relating to the standards and requirements of competitive trading. Because the CBOT is a self-regulatory organization charged with ensuring that the trading on its floor is lawfully executed, it has a significant interest in fully apprising the Commission of its views. By the same token, we are interested in the CBOT's interpretation of the standards it is charged with enforcing.
The Division has filed a response stating that it does not oppose the Commission's acceptance of the amicus curiae brief. In its filed response, the Division also addressed several statements in the CBOT's brief and has asked the Commission to accept the filing as its reply to the brief.
CBOT is knowledgeable about the trading practices at issue in this proceeding and is interested in how the Act is interpreted with regard to these practices. Accordingly, forgood cause shown, we grant CBOT's motion and accept the Division's reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
By the Commission (Chairperson BORN, Commissioners DIAL, TULL, HOLUM, and SPEARS).
Jean A. Webb
Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Dated: April 28, 1997