Alan Friedland has been refused summary judgment by the CFTC in his lawsuit against the agency (right). The trial date for the Compcoin fraud case has been set for January 31st, 2022.
In July, the CFTC filed a motion for summary judgment in its case against Friedland.
“No genuine question of these material facts” was stated by the CFTC in its filing.
Friedman was accused of seven counts of fraud in a fourteen-page court order. The court disagreed.
There are two counts of fraud: Counts 1 and 4. An appeals court ruled that the CFTC’s evidence was insufficient to prove Friedland’s scienter. Friedland, on the other hand, went out of his way to “defraud, manipulate, or deceive” the victims of Compcoin. Fraud by a CTA is the subject of Counts 2 and 5. (Commodity Trading Advisor). An appeals court ruled that CompCoin was not a CTA.
Friedland cannot be held accountable for representations he makes on behalf of a non-CTA since he is an affiliated person or principal of a different CTA, as directed by the CFTC.
The CFTC has also failed to show any other legal basis for attributing Fintech’s and Friedland’s remarks to Compcoin LLC. There are two counts of aid and abetting: Counts 3 and 7. The CFTC’s claims in these counts were based on reasoning that had already been rejected in previous counts.
There is no evidence that the CFTC is entitled to a summary judgment with respect to its assisting and abetting claims since it has not proven that a violation occurred. No proper disclaimer was included in count six. The court ruled that CompCoin’s website was the focus of the case.
Neither the Compcoin LLC white paper nor the historical ART rates of return were included on Fintech’s website or otherwise made by Friedland in his capacity as a principal of Fintech, according to the information available. “Far from obvious” whether the relevant Code of Federal Regulation section would be applicable to the CFTC’s suit against CompCoin on count 6. The CFTC has not stated a legal basis for applying the regulation to Compcoin LLC’s acts, and it is not obvious whether the regulation is applicable.
Keeping in mind that the CFTC couldn’t clear the bar for summary judgment with this opinion. These arguments will be made in court as well.
On December 14th, a judge rejected the CFTC’s request for summary judgment. On the same day, an order was issued for the trial’s schedule. On December 13th, Friedland filed an appeal, which might postpone the proceedings.
In a June 30th filing, Friedland requested permission to amend his answers and defenses to the CFTC’s complaint. His appeal is related to this filing.
There was no evidence that the Defendants had a reasonable reason for delaying the motion, and they did not provide specific facts to back up their claims that they were diligent in their efforts to amend. On December 13th, Friedland requested a re-examination, which was denied. Later that day, a notice of appeal was submitted. Prior to the January trial, Friedland requested that it be pushed out 90 days. as a means of allowing adequate time for planning, making necessary revisions in light of pending motions (if any), and expediting the adjudication of this case.
On December 14th, a judge rejected that motion, which had been submitted on December 6th. A settlement conference scheduling order is also worth noting while the trial and Friedland’s appeal are pending. On December 15th, a judge issued an order requiring the parties to attend a settlement meeting.