U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Deutsche Bank AG

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Deutsche Bank AG

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Deutsche Bank AG

Plaintiff:	U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Defendant:	Deutsche Bank AG
Case Number:	1:2016cv06544
Filed:	August 18, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	William H. Pauley
Nature of Suit:	Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause of Action:	07 U.S.C. § 0013
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 20, 2021	Filing 94 ORDER: Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 10/20/2021) (jca)
October 20, 2016	Filing 23 OPINION & ORDER APPOINTING INDEPENDENT MONITOR: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") brings this enforcement action against Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank") alleging a chronic failure to comply with swap da ta reporting regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act. On August 18, 2016, simultaneous with the filing of its Complaint, the CFTC submitted a Proposed Consent Order of Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Deutsche Bank (the &qu ot;Proposed Consent Order"). Among other things, the Proposed Consent Order provides for the appointment of an independent monitor. In its initial application, the CFTC informed this Court that the parties had agreed on an independent monit or that the CFTC would recommend to the Court at a subsequent hearing. This Court agrees that the appointment of an independent monitor is warranted. "The power of the federal courts to appoint special masters to monitor compliance wit h their remedial orders is well established." City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 145 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). This Court has broad discretion to appoint a compliance monitor as a form of equitable remedy, and may tailor the appointment order to "the special needs of the individual case." U.S. v. Apple, 992 F. Supp. 2d 263, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Here, it is obvious that Deutsche Bank's efforts to comply with the September 2015 CFTC O rder have not been sufficient. In such situations, the use of independent monitors is appropriate. Apple, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 280 ("external monitors have been found to be appropriate where consensual methods of implementation of remedial order s are 'unreliable'..."). Accordingly, this Court appoints Paul S. Atkins, Esq. of Patomak Global Partners LLC as the independent monitor with all of the powers set forth in the Proposed Consent Order, which is also approved. Mr. A tkins has assured this Court that he and his firm have no conflicts of interest that would preclude them from this engagement. Finally, this Court notes that Proposed Consent Order does not obligate the independent monitor to provide periodic report s to the Court. Use of external monitors, in addition to remediating the problems at hand, is "to aid judges in the performance of specific judicial duties, as they may arise in the progress of a cause," namely this Court's duty to ensure that the Consent Order serves the public interest. La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 256 (1957). This Court will confer ex parte with Mr. Atkins, as necessary and appropriate. (As further set forth in this Opinion & Order.) (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 10/20/2016) (mro)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 20, 2021

Filing 94 ORDER: Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 10/20/2021) (jca)

October 20, 2016

Filing 23 OPINION & ORDER APPOINTING INDEPENDENT MONITOR: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") brings this enforcement action against Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank") alleging a chronic failure to comply with swap da ta reporting regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act. On August 18, 2016, simultaneous with the filing of its Complaint, the CFTC submitted a Proposed Consent Order of Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Deutsche Bank (the &qu ot;Proposed Consent Order"). Among other things, the Proposed Consent Order provides for the appointment of an independent monitor. In its initial application, the CFTC informed this Court that the parties had agreed on an independent monit or that the CFTC would recommend to the Court at a subsequent hearing. This Court agrees that the appointment of an independent monitor is warranted. "The power of the federal courts to appoint special masters to monitor compliance wit h their remedial orders is well established." City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 145 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). This Court has broad discretion to appoint a compliance monitor as a form of equitable remedy, and may tailor the appointment order to "the special needs of the individual case." U.S. v. Apple, 992 F. Supp. 2d 263, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Here, it is obvious that Deutsche Bank's efforts to comply with the September 2015 CFTC O rder have not been sufficient. In such situations, the use of independent monitors is appropriate. Apple, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 280 ("external monitors have been found to be appropriate where consensual methods of implementation of remedial order s are 'unreliable'..."). Accordingly, this Court appoints Paul S. Atkins, Esq. of Patomak Global Partners LLC as the independent monitor with all of the powers set forth in the Proposed Consent Order, which is also approved. Mr. A tkins has assured this Court that he and his firm have no conflicts of interest that would preclude them from this engagement. Finally, this Court notes that Proposed Consent Order does not obligate the independent monitor to provide periodic report s to the Court. Use of external monitors, in addition to remediating the problems at hand, is "to aid judges in the performance of specific judicial duties, as they may arise in the progress of a cause," namely this Court's duty to ensure that the Consent Order serves the public interest. La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 256 (1957). This Court will confer ex parte with Mr. Atkins, as necessary and appropriate. (As further set forth in this Opinion & Order.) (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 10/20/2016) (mro)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Deutsche Bank AG
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Represented By:	Amanda Leigh Burks
Represented By:	Richard A. Glaser
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Deutsche Bank AG
Represented By:	Kenneth M. Raisler
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?