17 C.F.R. § 32.5
Option transactions entered into prior to the effective date of this part
Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to affect any lawful activities that occurred prior to the effective date of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1977–1994 · leading case: Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 643 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 1994).
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 643 N.E.2d 734 (Ill. 1994). “" 17 C.F.R. § 32.5 (a)(1) (1977). As the trial court found, "Heinold's Summary Disclosure Statement, which concealed and failed to disclose an additional commission by using the misleading and deceptive term `Foreign Service Fee,' failed to satisfy these requirements.”
Kelley v. Carr, 567 F. Supp. 831 (W.D. Mich. 1983). “9 ; failure to disclose required information, under 17 C.F.R. § 32.5 ; and failure to secure prompt execution of commodity option orders, under 17 C.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. U. S. Metals Depository Co., 468 F. Supp. 1149 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “17 C.F.R. § 32.5 (a). 8 . Id. § 32.5(a)(1)-(6).”
Witzel v. Chartered Sys. Corp. of NY, 490 F. Supp. 343 (D. Minnesota 1980). “The plaintiff relies on the following CFTC regulations, and asserts that these regulations were violated: 17 CFR § 32.5 (a) (which requires that a summary disclosure statement be furnished to the commodity options purchaser prior to the entry of the transaction); 17 CFR § 32.”
Westlake v. Abrams, 98 F.R.D. 1 (N.D. Ga. 1981). “Rivers expressly found no implied private cause of action to exist under all of these provisions except 17 C.F.R. § 32.5 which requires the disclosure of certain information in conjunction with the sale of commodity futures options.”
Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 449 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992). “” 17 C.F.R. §32.5 (a)(l) (1977). While defendant may have taken considerable measures to ensure that its summary disclosure statement complied with applicable CFTC regulations, we find that defendant’s summary disclosure statement does not fully, clearly and candidly disclose…”
British Am. Commodity Options Corp. v. Bagley, 552 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1977). “The new disclosure rule, 17 C.F.R. § 32.5 (1976), requires the option customer to be furnished a “summary disclosure statement” prior to the commodity option transaction.”
Myron v. Hauser, 673 F.2d 994 (8th Cir. 1982). “5, 17 C.F.R. § 32.5 ), registration of all persons trading in commodity options as “futures commissions merchants” or as “associated persons” (Rule 32.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.