Before the

In the Matter of
CFTC Docket No. 99-11

The Division of Enforcement ("Division") seeks a stay of its September 5, 2000 deadline to produce certain investigatory documents to respondents.1 The Division has filed an application for interlocutory review of the ruling requiring this production.2 Its application contends that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") ruling rests on a misconstruction of a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") that U.K. authorities reached with the Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in September 1991. The Division emphasizes that the ALJ's interpretation is inconsistent with the both the U.K. authorities' and the SEC's understanding of the MOU's relevant provisions and claims there is a substantial risk that production in accordance with the ALJ's interpretation will have a "chilling effect" on future mutual cooperation with U.K. authorities.

Respondents have not yet filed their opposition to the Division's application.3 Without acquiescing in the Division's claim that a stay is warranted under the applicable standards, however, respondents have indicated that they do not object to a stay of the production deadline.

The Division's application for interlocutory review raises significant issues that merit a swift but careful review. Accordingly, we stay the Division's deadline for production until such a review is completed.

Both the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority ("FSA") and the SEC have filed motions for leave to file amicus briefs in support of the Division's application for interlocutory review. FSA's motion indicates that counsel for respondents consents to its participation as an amicus. Respondents oppose the SEC's participation because, in their view, the ALJ's production order primarily involves an interpretation of the Commission's rules that will not affect the SEC's interests.

Both the FSA's and the SEC's motion describe an interest in the ruling at issue consistent with the standards we have applied in considering such motions. See, e.g., In re Glass, [1996-1998 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) 26,938 (CFTC Jan. 10, 1997).4 Moreover, both the FSA and the SEC offer a unique perspective on the complex issues raised by the Division's application. In these circumstances, we grant their motions and accept the amicus briefs attached to their motions. The page limit for respondents' opposition is expanded to 50 pages so that they may respond to the points raised by the FSA and the SEC.


By the Commission (Chairman RAINER and Commissioners HOLUM, SPEARS, NEWSOME and ERICKSON).

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

Dated: September 5, 2000

1 The presiding Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") imposed an August 22, 2000 deadline for this production. The deadline was stayed until September 5, 2000 by a delegated authority order issued on August 21, 2000.

2 According to the Division, the documents in question are consultative materials involving activities in the copper market obtained from financial regulators in the United Kingdom ("U.K. authorities"). The Complaint in this proceeding involves unusual activity in the world copper market between 1989 and 1995. It alleges that respondents attempted to and did manipulate the price of copper and copper futures contracts between October and December 1995.

3 The delegated authority order referred to in note 1 granted respondents until September 15, 2000 to file their opposition.

4 As a party to the MOU, and a potential victim of an alleged "chilling effect" on mutual cooperation with U.K. authorities arising from the ALJ's ruling, the SEC's interest meets the applicable requirements.