UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
RONALD S. BLOOMFIELD
NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION
CFTC Docket No. CRAA 99-1
On October 8, 1998, we received a notice of appeal and petition from Ronald S. Bloomfield asking us to stay the effective date of a final order of the National Futures Association ("NFA") pending Commission review. The NFA appellate decision was dated September 22, 1998, 1 affirming its Hearing Panel's decision finding Bloomfield in violation of NFA disciplinary rules concerning supervisory duties, submission of false information and standards of commercial honor. The NFA decision prohibits Bloomfield from acting as a principal of an NFA member or from exercising supervisory responsibilities over NFA associates for three years2 and orders Bloomfield to pay a fine of $5,000 within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Bloomfield was registered as an associated person from 1985 to 1995 when his NFA registration was terminated. From 1991 to 1994, he acted as a branch manager of the Santa Monica branch office of New Castle International Commodities, Inc. ("New Castle"), a registered introducing broker and member of NFA.3 In late 1993, Bloomfield allowed Grant Gauthier, an unregistered former felon, to work in the Santa Monica office while his application for associated person status was pending before the NFA. In his petition to stay, Bloomfield argues that the weight of the evidence does not support the NFA findings because the accounts introduced by Gauthier were processed in the New York office and no customer funds were received or disbursed by the Santa Monica office. (Pet. at 4.) Therefore, according to Bloomfield, "all offending conduct occurred away from the Santa Monica office." (Pet. at 5.) The NFA opposes Bloomfield's petition, arguing that petitioner has not met the burden required for a stay pursuant to Commission Rule 171.22, 17 C.F.R. § 171.22 (1998), because his petition is simply " a self-serving re-evaluation of evidence considered by [the NFA] Hearing Panel and the Appeals Committee." (Opp. Br. at 4.)
In considering whether to grant a stay, we consider the four factors enunciated in Commission Rule 171.22(c), 17 C.F.R. § 171.22(c) (1998):
1) whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits;
2) whether the petitioner will be irreparably harmed without a stay;
3) whether the issuance of a stay will substantially harm other parties;
4) whether a stay will adversely affect the public interest.
Bloomfield argues that he will be irreparably harmed if his petition is denied. He states that he has a membership application pending before the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD"). According to Bloomfield, the NASD will not approve his membership application if his petition for a stay is denied by the Commission, thereby depriving him of his "planned employment and livelihood." (Pet. at 1-2.) A party seeking a stay must demonstrate that the injury claimed is "both certain and great." Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Grandview Holding Corp. v. NFA, [1994-1996 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 26,708 at 43,954 (CFTC May 30, 1996). Monetary loss alone generally does not rise to the level of irreparable harm, and Bloomfield has not demonstrated that he is barred from employment in other fields. See In re Gilchrist, [1990-1992 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 25,024 (CFTC Mar. 27, 1991).
Because we find that petitioner has not made the required showing of irreparable harm, we need not consider whether the other criteria for a stay have been met. The petition for a stay is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
By the Commission (Chairperson BORN and Commissioners TULL, HOLUM, SPEARS, and NEWSOME).
Jean A. Webb
Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Dated: November 16, 1998
1 Pursuant to Commission Rule 171.22, 17 C.F.R. § 171.22(1998), a final decision of the NFA in a disciplinary action shall be effective 30 days after service of notice.
2 The NFA decision allows Bloomfield to act as branch manager of a one-person branch office provided that he is under supervision by a sponsoring firm.
3 In 1995, NFA accepted a settlement offer from New Castle in which New Castle, neither admitting nor denying guilt, agreed to withdraw permanently from NFA membership and to request withdrawal from registration with the Commission.