UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

HUSSEIN MOHAMED HAEKAL CFTC Docket No. 93-R109

v.

REFCO, INC. and RONALD VON NEEFE ORDER

On April 8, 1998, the Commission extended until April 21, 1998 the deadline for complainant to file the bond required of nonresident claimants. See Section 14(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 18(c) (1994); see also Commission Rule 12.13(b)(3), 17 C.F.R. 12.13(b) (1998). Prior to the expiration of that period, complainant orally requested a further 30-day extension, advising the Commission staff that he had to be away from his country of residence, Germany, and outlining steps he had taken to obtain the bond. Before acting on that request for a further extension, the Commission, by delegated authority, offered respondents an opportunity to respond to the request. See Order Pursuant to Delegated Authority (April 21, 1998).

Respondent Refco, Inc. ("Refco"), filed a timely objection to the extension, arguing that complainant had had ample time to file a bond since receiving notice of this unmet jurisdictional prerequisite several months ago. See Order (Sept. 26, 1997). Complainant replied to Refco's objection, reasserting the difficulties he had encountered in attempting to meet the bond requirement.

Notwithstanding those difficulties, the Commission has determined that complainant has had sufficient time to file a bond. The April 8, 1998 deadline was extended at his request to April 21, 1998. The additional 30 days he requested expired on May 21, 1998. It is now July, and Haekal has not posted the bond. 1

Haekal has failed to comply with the statutory bond requirement, despite being given numerous opportunities to do so. Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. .

By the Commission (Chairperson BORN and Commissioners TULL, HOLUM and SPEARS).

________________________

Jean A. Webb
Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Dated: July 13, 1998


1 Haekal wrote to the Commission staff on June 11, 1998, suggesting that the amount of the bond be lowered. Haekal's complaint stated his damages in yen. In imposing the bond requirement the Commission converted the amount to U.S. dollars, based on the exchange rate stated on an account statement appended to his complaint. Haekal sought a reduced bond based on current exchange rates. In the circumstances of this case, this request for relief is denied as moot.