7 U.S.C. § 2a to 4a
Transferred
7 U.S.C. § 4 has no page of its own: the Office of the Law Revision Counsel prints it together with other sections as the single entry 7 U.S.C. § 2a to 4a, shown below.
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases, 1942–2018 · leading case: Joseph P. Cange v. Stotler & Co., 826 F.2d 581 (7th Cir. 1987).
Joseph P. Cange v. Stotler & Co., 826 F.2d 581 (7th Cir. 1987). “The fact that the agent’s actions were illegal and fraudulent does not relieve the FCM, as the agent’s principal, of civil liability under the vicarious liability principles in 7 U.S.C. § 4 . Nosser, Comm.Fut.L.Rep. (CCH) ¶ 23,470, at 33,628; Gadberry, Comm.”
Kolbeck v. LIT Am., Inc., 923 F. Supp. 557 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). “agent- 7 U.S.C. § 4 (1994). Defendants oppose plaintiffs’ theory first on the ground that the private right of action under the CEA — 7 U.”
Bert Dohmen-Ramirez & Wellington Advisory, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Ronald Ho, 837 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1988). “and Bert Dohmen-Ramirez, Wellington’s president and owner, were liable for the fraudulent acts of their agent, Jon Handy, under 7 U.S.C. § 4 . Handy was found to have violated 7 U.”
Zoltan Guttman v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 197 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1999). “5 The complaint also charged that Guttman was vicariously liable for Magid’s violations because Magid was acting as his agent under section 2(a)(1)(A) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 4 , 6 and because he was a “controlling person” of Magid under section 13(b) of the CEA, 7 U.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Rosenberg, 85 F. Supp. 2d 424 (D.N.J. 2000). “Because Rosenberg was at all times relevant to this litigation acting on behalf of himself and Pro Broker, the corporation is liable under 7 U.S.C. § 4 (1999). That provision provides: For the purpose of this chapter, the act, omission, or failure of any official, agent, or…”
Clayton Brokerage Co. Of St. Louis v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Webster S. Sturcken, 794 F.2d 573 (11th Cir. 1986). “Clayton’s liability for Gotthelf’s misrepresentations is based on § 2(a)(1) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 4 , which provides that “[t]he act, omission, or failure of any .”
Bennett v. EF Hutton Co., 597 F. Supp. 1547 (N.D. Ohio 1984). “COMMODITY ACT CLAIMS Hutton contends that the CEA claims of the second amended complaint fall into three categories: (1) the respondeat superior claim of Count Two, under 7 U.S.C. §§ 4 , 6b and 6d; (2) the “aiding and abetting” claims of Count One, under 7 U.”
Matter of Lake States Commodities, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 1461 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “Therefore, it is entirely permissible to rely on the general respondeat superior section of the statute, 7 U.S.C. § 4 , as the basis for imposing such liability absent any reason to conclude that Congress did not intend for § [2] to apply to § [22], There is no such reason.”
Anthony J. Bosco v. Robert B. Serhant, 836 F.2d 271 (7th Cir. 1988). “But K & S was also Serhant’s futures commission merchant and in this capacity designated one of Serhant’s companies as an agent to assist it in trading for the accounts of the investors in the Hedge-Spread Program.”
Stevenson v. J.C. Bradford & Co. (In Re Cannon), 230 B.R. 546 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1999). “See 7 U.S.C. § 4 (1922) (establishing liability of principal for acts of agent).”
Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 802 F.2d 963 (7th Cir. 1986). “This petition by Rosenthal & Company, a commodities broker, to review an order of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission requires us to decide questions of the interpretation and application of section 2(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 4 . That section provides…”
United States v. Bogle, 689 F. Supp. 1121 (S.D. Fla. 1988). “, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 7 U.S.C. § 4 (a); Consumer Product Safety Commission, 15 U.”
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.