Indiana Asset Protection News

Court Orders Illinois Broker John M. Lofgren And Melrose Asset Management To Pay Over $5.5 Million To Defrauded Commodity Pool Participants

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that on August 30, 2004, Judge William J. Hibbler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a consent order of permanent injunction against John M. Lofgren, formerly of Kenilworth, Illinois, and Melrose Asset Management of Chicago, Illinois. Lofgren was the chief executive officer of Melrose Asset Management, a registered commodity pool operator, and was registered in the futures industry as an associated person of Melrose Asset Management. The court’s action concludes a CFTC anti-fraud action against the defendants two years after it was filed on August 30, 2002 (see CFTC News Release 4695-02, September 4, 2002).

The CFTC complaint charged the defendants with misappropriating over $1.8 million from customers that had not been returned, issuing at least 200 false statements to pool participants, failing to distribute annual reports to pool participants and filing false annual reports with the CFTC. The defendants admitted the findings in the order.

The court’s consent settlement order permanently prohibits the defendants from violating the federal commodity laws, from trading commodity futures or options for themselves or others, and from applying for registration with the Commission in any capacity.

The court's order requires the defendants to pay restitution of over $1.8 million to pool participants and over $3.7 million in ill-gotten gains, for a total of over $5.5 million.

Contact a Indiana Asset Protection lawyer today and get a free consultation!

	Did You Know?
	LLC envelope offers substantial advantages over other entities LLC envelope offers substantial advantages over other entities, there are at least five common circumstances when a tax regime other than an S corporation may be more appropriate: 1) the business cannot qualify as an S corporation; 2) the one-class-of-stock limitation for S corporations cannot accommodate certain business terms agreed to by the parties; 3) the business involves appreciating assets (i.e., assets that have, or are likely to have, a fair market value in excess of basis), such as real estate; 4) the business has considerable debt and the owners anticipate significant losses; and 5) the wage-reduction tax strategy explained previously will not benefit the owners because either the primary income of the business is excluded from self-employment tax or, in the case of newly formed companies, one or more employee-owners already receive aggregate wages or self-employment income from an existing business in an amount which approaches the taxable wage base limitation