U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— COMMODITY EXCHANGES

7 U.S.C. § 6m

Use of mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce by commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators; relation to other law

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It shall be unlawful for any commodity trading advisor or commodity pool operator, unless registered under this chapter, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as such commodity trading advisor or commodity pool operator: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to any commodity trading advisor who, during the course of the preceding twelve months, has not furnished commodity trading advice to more than fifteen persons and who does not hold himself out generally to the public as a commodity trading advisor. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any commodity trading advisor who is a (1) dealer, processor, broker, or seller in cash market transactions of any commodity specifically set forth in section 2(a) of this title prior to October 23, 1974, (or products thereof) or (2) nonprofit, voluntary membership, general farm organization, who provides advice on the sale or purchase of any commodity specifically set forth in section 2(a) of this title prior to October 23, 1974; if the advice by the person described in clause (1) or (2) of this sentence as a commodity trading advisor is solely incidental to the conduct of that person’s business: Provided, That such person shall be subject to proceedings under section 18 of this title.(2) Nothing in this chapter shall relieve any person of any obligation or duty, or affect the availability of any right or remedy available to the Securities and Exchange Commission or any private party arising under the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.] or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.] governing the issuance, offer, purchase, or sale of securities of a commodity pool, or of persons engaged in transactions with respect to such securities, or reporting by a commodity pool.(3)Exception.—(A)In general.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any commodity trading advisor that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment adviser whose business does not consist primarily of acting as a commodity trading advisor, as defined in section 1a of this title, and that does not act as a commodity trading advisor to any commodity pool that is engaged primarily in trading commodity interests.(B)Engaged primarily.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), a commodity trading advisor or a commodity pool shall be considered to be “engaged primarily” in the business of being a commodity trading advisor or commodity pool if it is or holds itself out to the public as being engaged primarily, or proposes to engage primarily, in the business of advising on commodity interests or investing, reinvesting, owning, holding, or trading in commodity interests, respectively.(C)Commodity interests.—For purposes of this paragraph, commodity interests shall include contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery, options on such contracts, security futures, swaps, leverage contracts, foreign exchange, spot and forward contracts on physical commodities, and any monies held in an account used for trading commodity interests.(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, § 4m, as added Pub. L. 93–463, title II, § 205(a), Oct. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 1398; amended Pub. L. 95–405, § 8, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 870; Pub. L. 97–444, title I, § 103, Jan. 11, 1983, 96 Stat. 2296; Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title II, § 251(d)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–443; Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §§ 721(e)(2), 749(b), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1671, 1747.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Securities Act of 1933, referred to in par. (2), is title I of act May 27, 1933, ch. 38, 48 Stat. 74, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 77a et seq.) of chapter 2A of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 77a of Title 15 and Tables.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, referred to in par. (2), is act June 6, 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, which is classified principally to chapter 2B (§ 78a et seq.) of Title 15. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 78a of Title 15 and Tables.

Amendments

2010—Par. (3). Pub. L. 111–203, § 749(b), inserted heading, designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and inserted heading, substituted “Paragraph (1)” for “Subsection (1) of this section” and “to any commodity pool that is engaged primarily in trading commodity interests.” for “to any investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise that is engaged primarily in trading in any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market or registered derivatives transaction execution facility.”, and added subpars. (B) and (C).

Pub. L. 111–203, § 721(e)(2), substituted “section 1a” for “section 1a(6)”.

2000—Par. (3). Pub. L. 106–554 added par. (3).

1983—Pub. L. 97–444 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

1978—Pub. L. 95–405 inserted provisions relating to applicability of this section to commodity trading advisors who are dealers, processors, brokers, or sellers in cash market transactions of specifically listed commodities or nonprofit, voluntary membership, general farm organizations who provide advice on sale or purchase of specifically listed commodities if the advice by the person described in cl. (1) or (2) of this sentence is incidental solely to the conduct to the person’s business and that such person be subject to proceedings under section 18 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle A (§§ 711–754) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle A, see section 754 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 1a of this title.

Effective Date of 1983 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–444 effective Jan. 11, 1983, see section 239 of Pub. L. 97–444, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–405 effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 28 of Pub. L. 95–405, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 418 of Pub. L. 93–463, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Jack W. Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Jack W. Savage, 611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “The complaint alleged in Count IV that since April 21, 1975, Savage violated section 4m of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m, 7 by operating as a commodity trading *276 advisor without registering with the CFTC.”
Comm. Fut. L. Rep. P 27,357 Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 149 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “Commodity trading advisors are required to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “the Commission”) pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l) — a provision of the Commodity Exchange Act.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Amerman, 645 F. App'x 938 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “The undisputed facts show that Amer-man was an unregistered commodity pool operator who unlawfully commingled funds of the DVG commodity pool with other funds, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 4.20 . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. JBW Capital, LLC, 812 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Wilson and JBW contest the district court’s conclusion that they are liable under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) for failing to register with the CFTC, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l), and for violating two commodity fraud provisions, 7 TJ.”
Taucher, Frank v. Brown-Hruska, Sharon, 396 F.3d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “unless registered under this chapter, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as such commodity trading advisor.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Equity Fin. Grp. LLC, 572 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “§§ 6b and 6o and failing to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as required by 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m and 6k, among other counts.”
Taucher v. Born, 53 F. Supp. 2d 464 (D.D.C. 1999). · cites it 5× “INTRODUCTION This case involves a First Amendment challenge to Section 4m of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. § 6m (1994), as applied to the plaintiffs who publish books, newsletters, Internet websites, detailed written instruction manuals (known in the industry as…”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Cross v. Anthony Vartuli, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Avco Fin. Corp., J. Michael Gent, 228 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “Count III charged the defendants with having failed to register AVCO as a CTA as required by Section 4m(l) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l). The complaint charged Vartuli and Gent both as controlling persons of AVCO and as aiders and abettors of AVCO’s conduct with respect to each…”
United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kratville, 796 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(l) and 6k(2) (2006). EMHC never registered or filed an exemption of registration with the CFTC.”
United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Driver, 877 F. Supp. 2d 968 (C.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 3× “Failure to Register as CPOs The CFTC’s third claim contends that Driver and Axcess Automation are liable under section 4m of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l), for failure to register with the CFTC as a CPOs.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. British Am. Commodity Options Corp., 560 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “(“British American”) from making use of the mails or any instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with its business as a commodity trading advisor without being registered, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m. We reverse and remand with direction to issue a preliminary…”
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Hall, 49 F. Supp. 3d 444 (M.D.N.C. 2014). · cites it 6× “BACKGROUND Plaintiff, the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), brought this action against Defendant, proceeding pro se, for violations of: (1) Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), for failure to register as a…”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) — 19 cases
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Hall, 49 F. Supp. 3d 444 (M.D.N.C. 2014). “BACKGROUND Plaintiff, the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), brought this action against Defendant, proceeding pro se, for violations of: (1) Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1), for failure to register as a…”
Taucher, Frank v. Brown-Hruska, Sharon, 396 F.3d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “unless registered under this chapter, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as such commodity trading advisor.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Amerman, 645 F. App'x 938 (11th Cir. 2016). “The undisputed facts show that Amer-man was an unregistered commodity pool operator who unlawfully commingled funds of the DVG commodity pool with other funds, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 4.20 . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary…”
CFTC v. James Donelson, 115 F.4th 791 (7th Cir. 2024).
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Lamarco (E.D.N.Y 2019).
— 7 U.S.C. § 6m(2) — 2 cases
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Unique Fin. Concepts, Inc., 196 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 1999).
SEC v. Unique Fin. Concepts, 196 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 1999).
— 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l) — 17 cases
Comm. Fut. L. Rep. P 27,357 Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 149 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 1998). “Commodity trading advisors are required to register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “the Commission”) pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l) — a provision of the Commodity Exchange Act.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. JBW Capital, LLC, 812 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2016). “Specifically, Wilson and JBW contest the district court’s conclusion that they are liable under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) for failing to register with the CFTC, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l), and for violating two commodity fraud provisions, 7 TJ.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Amerman, 645 F. App'x 938 (11th Cir. 2016). “The undisputed facts show that Amer-man was an unregistered commodity pool operator who unlawfully commingled funds of the DVG commodity pool with other funds, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 4.20 . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary…”
Taucher, Frank v. Brown-Hruska, Sharon, 396 F.3d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “unless registered under this chapter, to make use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce in connection with his business as such commodity trading advisor.”
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, Cross v. Anthony Vartuli, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Avco Fin. Corp., J. Michael Gent, 228 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2000). “Count III charged the defendants with having failed to register AVCO as a CTA as required by Section 4m(l) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l). The complaint charged Vartuli and Gent both as controlling persons of AVCO and as aiders and abettors of AVCO’s conduct with respect to each…”
— 7 U.S.C. § 6m(l)(2006) — 1 case
United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kratville, 796 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2015). “See 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(l) and 6k(2) (2006). EMHC never registered or filed an exemption of registration with the CFTC.”
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.