Author Avatar



Share post:

The CFTC has reached an agreement with EminiFX owner Eddy Alexandre for a preliminary injunction.

The requested 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, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Complaint, hereby accede to the entry of this Consent Order for Preliminary Injunction Against Defendants Alexandre and EminiFX…

Defendant Alexandre also has no objection to the Receiver putting into a Consent Order on behalf of Defendant EminiFX so long as the Consent Order does not acknowledge or deny culpability.

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 procedures against Alexandre.

The agreed 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.

The only thing preventing the requested injunction from being approved by the court is a written opposition submitted by Christopher and Maureen Beil.

When the CFTC launched its action, the Bells were 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 turn over the paid deposit as part of the asset marshaling procedure.

The Bells object because 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 urge that elements of the proposed order that “attempt to confer Receiver with jurisdiction over the assets of Alexandre Estates LLC” be “struck entirely” in their June 14th letter to the court.

The Receiver replied in response to the Beil’s letter:

The Objection misinterprets the Proposed Consent Preliminary Injunction, mischaracterizes the Receivership’s position, and misstates crucial facts to achieve priority in recovering $535,000 in cash traceable to innocent consumers before, and at the expense of, those customers.

The Receiver goes on to say that the Bells, 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 handed to the Receivership pending the Biels’ dispute.

The CFTC adds up in its own June 15th response to Biel’s letter complaint that

If paragraphs 13, 28, and 19 of the Proposed Order are struck, the order might be left without an asset freeze.

The asset freeze is necessary to protect EminiFX clients’ remaining assets.

The Sellers’ proposed remedy may render the Proposed Order ineffective, causing consumers to lose cash over the escrowed amounts claimed by the Sellers.

It’s exceedingly improbable that the court will issue a preliminary injunction without the asset freezing provision.

The Biels’ written protest is still awaiting a ruling. It’s most likely linked to the preliminary injunction being granted.

I’ll keep an eye on the case docket for any further developments.

Intelligence Prime Capital Review Part 3- Is a Fraud
Decentra Review part 2 - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *