Categories
The CFTC has reached an agreement with EminiFX owner Eddy Alexandre for a preliminary injunction. The proposed injunction was filed on June 14th and is awaiting judicial approval.
The CFTC and Alexandre agreed to a preliminary injunction, which eliminates the need for a hearing and further resources.
Defendants Alexandre and EminiFX hereby consent to the entry of this Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction without admitting or disputing the allegations in the Complaint. Defendant Alexandre also has no issue with the Receiver entering into a Consent Order on behalf of Defendant EminiFX as long as the Consent Order does not admit or deny liability.
Alexandre is charged with six counts of fraud by the CFTC. The CFTC’s main complaint, which serves as the foundation for their case against Alexandre and EminiFX, will be heard in court.
In addition, there are ongoing criminal proceedings against Alexandre.
The consented preliminary injunction is simply a continuance of the SRO that was issued.
Alexandre’s and EminiFX’s assets will remain frozen as the EminiFX Temporary Receivership is made permanent.
A letter of objection filed by Christopher and Maureen Beil is the only thing keeping the requested injunction from being approved by the court.
When the CFTC launched its action, the Bells were in the midst of selling a property to Alexandre. They took Alexandre’s deposit, which the CFTC and EminiFX Receivership believe is made up of investor cash.
The receiver has asked that the Bells send over the paid deposit as part of the asset marshalling procedure.
The Bells object on the grounds that the EminiFX Receiver should be bound by the provisions of the sale contract if he has legal authorization to act on Alexandre’s behalf.
The Bells request that provisions of the proposed injunction that “attempt to confer the receiver with authority over the assets of Alexandre Estates LLC” be “struck entirely” in their June 14th letter to the court.
The Receiver wrote in response to the Beil’s letter, ” The Objection misinterprets the Proposed Consent Preliminary Injunction, mischaracterizes the Receivership’s position, and misstates crucial facts in order to acquire priority in recovering $535,000 in cash traceable to innocent customers before, and at the expense of, those customers.”
The Receiver goes on to say that the Beils, like any other party, will have the chance to submit a claim against EminiFX at a later period.
The disputed $500,000 is now being stored in an account linked to Maureen Biel’s legal company. The Receiver emphasizes that this is not an “independent” arrangement, bolstering the argument that the assets should be released to the Receivership pending the Biels’ dispute.
The CFTC notes out in their own June 15th response to Biel’s letter of concern that removing paragraphs 13, 28, and 19 of the proposed order could result in the order being devoid of any asset freeze. The asset freeze is necessary to protect EminiFX customers’ remaining assets.
The Sellers’ proposed remedy may render the proposed order ineffective, causing consumers to lose cash in excess of the escrowed funds claimed by the Sellers.
It’s exceedingly improbable that the court will issue a preliminary injunction without the asset freezing provision.
The Biels’ letter of protest is still awaiting a ruling. It’s most likely connected to the preliminary injunction being granted.
I’ll keep an eye on the case docket for any new developments.
