3, Congress as well as the CFTC defined a "person" in the commodities industry very broadly to include: "individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations and trusts." See 7 U.S.C. § 1(a)(38) and 17 C.F.R. 1.3.

Again, given the scope of coverage intended by referring to “this chapter,” as well as to “any Commission rule, regulation, or order,” it would be incongruous if the Exchange Defendants could escape aiding and abetting liability. Plaintiffs’ claim for aiding and abetting manipulation against the Individual Defendants and Defendant CME Group is brought under 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq., which includes 7. U.S.C. §25(a)(1) and creates liability for “[a]ny person ... who willfully aids, abets, counsels, induces, or procures the commission of a violation of this chapter....” Plaintiffs have alleged in great detail                                                              23 The legislative history of the Act confirms that its “fundamental purpose ... is to insure fair practice and honest dealing on the commodity exchanges,” S.Rep.

A party seeking to establish an agency relationship must also demonstrate the existence of three elements: “(1) the manifestation by the principal that the agent shall act for him; (2) the agent’s acceptance of the undertaking; and (3) an understanding between the parties that the principal is to be in control of the undertaking.” Nuevo Mundo Holdings v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLC, No. 03 Civ. 0613, 2004 WL 112948, at * 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2004); Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372, 386 (2d Cir. 1994); see also Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1, cmt. b (1958). Traditional agency principles apply to claims under Section 2(a)(1)(B).

See Cargill, 452 F.2d 1154: if the Volkart decision is to be interpreted as prohibiting regulation of manipulative squeezes, it is not in line with the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., providing for comp

Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a- 1(e), since Defendants are found in, inhabit, or transact business in this District. III. THE PARTIES Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is an independent federal regulatory agency that is charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the provisions of the Act (2006 and Supp. 2009), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and the Commission Regulations promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq. (2012).

Second, the CEA grants the CFTC full authority to regulate trading of futures contracts on the NYMEX. See 7 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. (2002). Third, the application of state law unjust enrichment theories of liability to hold the Passive Investment Funds liable would directly conflict with the complex regulatory regime embodied in the CEA, and with federal policy concerning liability of investment funds for the acts of their investment advisors.

Accordingly, because there is no private right of action under Section 13(b), Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. 2. There Is No Private Action for Violations of CFTC Rule 1

Case 1:05-cv-04681 Document 80 Filed 05/30/2006 Page 20 of 23 Case 1:06-mc-00489-CKK Document 13-2 Filed 12/13/2006 Page 21 of 32 21 103. Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased one or more June Contracts in order to liquidate their short positions during the Class Period or make deliveries on such contract, and were injured as a result of defendants’ manipulation of the price of those contracts and the price of the notes underlying those contracts, in violation of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. 104.

229 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 92 U.S. v. Turkette 452 u.s. 576 (1981) ................................................................................................................... 83 United States v. Yannott, 555 u.s. 52 (1977) ................................................................................................................... 101 -xvm- Case 1:16-cv-05508-VSB Document 151 Filed 02/12/18 Page 19 of 154 Yang v. Odom, 392 F.3d 97 (3rd Cir. 2004) ................ ~ .............................................................................. 37,63 Zumpano v. Quinn 6 N.Y.3d 666 (2006) ............................................................................................................... 39,98 STATUTES 7 U.S.C. § 1, et.seq ...................................... ~ ..................................................................................... 58 7 u.s.c. §1(13) .................................................................................................................................. 7 7 U.S.C.§2(a)(1)(B) ........................................................................................................................... 68 7 u.s.c. § 6 .................................................. : .................................................................................... 1 08 7 u.s.c. § 6d(b) ................................................... 1,10,12,29,30,41,44,45,58,59,64,69,71,83,86,93,97 7 U.S.C.§ 6(d) ................................................................................................................................ 58 ,61

(Compare Claim XVI (claiming violations under 22(a) against all defendants but Wasendorf and his son) with Claim XXV (claiming violation of 22(b) against the Exchange).) Both claims fail.4 3 The CEA is codified at 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The provisions creating a private right of action, CEA Section 22, are codified at 7 U.S.C. § 25. To follow common practice and avoid confusion, we refer to the provision by its CEA section number, not the U.S. Code section number.