No. 98-2055
In the Supreme Court of the United States
WILLIAM C. DUNN AND DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC., PETITIONERS
v.
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION
SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
DAVID R. MERRILL
Acting General Counsel
J. DOUGLAS RICHARDS
Deputy General Counsel
C. MARIA D. GODEL
Attorney
Commodity Futures
Trading Commission
Washington, D.C. 20581
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioners
an award of attorneys fees on the ground that the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission was "substantially justified" in asserting jurisdiction
over petitioners' dealings in options on foreign currencies, even though
this Court later rejected the statutory construction (and controlling circuit
precedent) on which the Commission relied.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 98-2055
WILLIAM C. DUNN AND DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC., PETITIONERS
v.
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1a-5a) is reported at 169
F.3d 785. The order of the district court (Pet. App. 6a-11a) is unreported.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 26, 1999. The
petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on June 23, 1999. The jurisdiction
of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
STATEMENT
1. In April 1994, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) brought
suit against petitioners and other defendants in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. See Pet. App. 7a. The suit
charged that petitioners had committed fraud in connection with commodity
option contracts, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C.
1 et seq., and associated regulations. Pet. App. 7a. Among other things,
the Commission sought the appointment of a temporary receiver to locate,
preserve, and control petitioners' property for the benefit of their customers.
See id. at 7a, 16a.
Petitioners sought dismissal of the Commission's complaint on the ground
that the Commission lacked any jurisdiction over the contracts in which
they dealt, which were options on foreign currency. Pet. App. 7a-8a. They
relied on the so-called "Treasury Amendment" to the CEA, 7 U.S.C.
2(ii), which provides:
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to govern or in any way be applicable
to transactions in foreign currency, security warrants, security rights,
resales of installment loan contracts, repurchase options, government securities,
or mortgages and mortgage purchase commitments, unless such transactions
involve the sale thereof for future delivery conducted on a board of trade.
In Salomon Forex, Inc. v. Tauber, 8 F.3d 966, 976 (1993), cert. denied,
511 U.S. 1031 (1994) (Tauber), the Fourth Circuit had held that the Treasury
Amendment "applie[d] to all transactions in which foreign currencies
[were] the subject matter, including options."
In asserting jurisdiction over petitioners' conduct, the Commission relied
on Sections 2(a)(1)(A)(i) and 4c(b) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 2(i) and 6c(b),
which give the Commission jurisdiction over trading in options, and on the
Second Circuit's decision in CFTC v. American Board of Trade, Inc., 803
F.2d 1242 (1986) (ABT). See Pet. App. 8a-9a, 15a-16a. ABT had held that
the Treasury Amendment did not deprive the Commission of jurisdiction over
options on foreign currency, because a contract giving the holder the option
to purchase or sell a foreign currency by a specified date at a specified
price did not become a "transaction[] in" that currency, within
the meaning of the Amendment, unless and until the option was exercised.
See id. at 8a-9a; 803 F.2d at 1248. The Commission also cited Board of Trade
v. SEC, 677 F.2d 1137, 1154 (7th Cir.) (options on Government National Mortgage
Association securities not "transactions in * * * government securities"
for Treasury Amendment purposes because "[o]nly when the option holder
exercises the option is there a transaction in a government security"),
vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 1026 (1982), and CFTC v. Sterling Capital Co.,
[1980-1982 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 21,169, at 24,784
(N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 1981) (Sterling Capital) (foreign currency options not
"transactions in" foreign currency until exercised), modified
on other grounds, [1980-1982 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶
21,170 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 1981). See 94-6197 C.A. App. A130-A134 (2d Cir.)
(Letter from CFTC Regional Counsel to Hon. Thomas Griesa (May 24, 1994)).
The district court granted the Commission's motion for a temporary receiver,
basing its jurisdictional determination on the Second Circuit's decision
in ABT. See Pet. App. 8a, 16a. On petitioners' interlocutory appeal under
28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(2), the Second Circuit concluded that the Commission's
evidentiary proffer "sufficiently demonstrated that defendants deceived
investors and caused investors to receive false reports," conduct that
would violate the CEA if the Commission had jurisdiction over petitioners'
trading in currency options. CFTC v. Dunn, 58 F.3d 50, 53 (1995), rev'd
on other grounds, 519 U.S. 465 (1997). The court rejected petitioners' argument
that the Commission had no such jurisdiction, relying on ABT's interpretation
of the Treasury Amendment: "This issue is foreclosed by clear precedent
in this circuit that holds that the term 'transactions in foreign currency'
does not include options, even those options traded off-exchange."
Ibid. The court acknowledged that its holding conflicted with the Fourth
Circuit's decision in Tauber, but it viewed that conflict as one "for
the Supreme Court * * * to resolve." Id. at 54; see Pet. App. 16a &
n.5.
This Court granted review, and reversed the Second Circuit's judgment. Pet.
App. 12a-28a. Finding the relevant statutory language "plain,"
the Court held that the Treasury Amendment's term "transactions in
foreign currency" includes transactions involving options to buy or
sell foreign currency, as well as those involving foreign currency futures
contracts (i.e., "agreements to buy or sell a specified quantity of
[foreign currency] at a particular price for delivery at a set future date").
Id. at 17a. On remand from this Court, the court of appeals in turn remanded
the case to the district court, with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
See id. at 9a.
2. In July 1996, petitioners filed an application with the district court
seeking attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412. Pet. App. 6a, 9a. The district court denied
the application. Id. at 6a-11a. The court reasoned that the Commission "had
a reasonable basis in law for instigating litigation," because the
Second Circuit's decision in ABT had "squarely addressed" the
jurisdictional issue, and the Commission "was entitled to rely upon
that decision in assessing whether to bring suit. Indeed it was obligated
to follow that decision unless and until the decision was overruled."
Id. at 10a. The court further noted that the Commission had a "reasonable
basis in fact for bringing suit," there being "no suggestion that
[the Commission] failed to investigate the facts of the case or that they
did not discover wrongdoing sufficient to warrant judicial intervention."
Ibid. Accordingly, the court held that the Commission's decision to bring
suit against petitioners was "substantially justified" within
the meaning of the EAJA, and that petitioners were therefore not entitled
to an award of fees or costs under that Act. Ibid.
3. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1a-5a. The court first noted
that the test of "substantial[] justifi[cation]" under the Act
"is essentially one of reasonableness," and that the district
court's resolution of the issue would be reversed only if that court had
abused its discretion. Id. at 3a. The court then rejected (id. at 3a-5a)
petitioners' argument that because this Court had unanimously rejected the
holding and reasoning of the ABT opinion, on which the Commission had relied
in bringing suit, the Commission could not have been "substantially
justified" in asserting jurisdiction over petitioner's conduct in the
first place. Observing that "[t]he issue for EAJA purposes is not what
the law is when the EAJA application is made, but rather whether the government
was substantially justified in believing the law not to have foreclosed
its position during the underlying litigation," the court of appeals
agreed with the district court that because ABT "was the binding law
of this circuit on the jurisdictional question presented by this case during
the filing and pendency of the CFTC's action against [petitioners], the
CFTC was entitled to rely upon that authority, notwithstanding that the
law changed thereafter." Id. at 4a.
ARGUMENT
1. The court of appeals held (Pet. App. 1a-5a) that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it determined (id. at 6a-11a) that the CFTC
was "substantially justified" in attempting to assert jurisdiction
over petitioners' fraudulent dealings in foreign currency options. Both
courts relied principally (id. at 4a, 10a) on the fact that at the time
the Commission brought suit against petitioners, the court of appeals had
already resolved the relevant jurisdictional question in the Commission's
favor, and this Court had not yet held to the contrary (see id. at 12a-27a).
Petitioners argue (Pet. 6-8) that the decision below conflicts with Pierce
v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 569 (1988). That argument lacks merit.
Pierce addressed two important issues under the EAJA: the meaning of the
"substantially justified" standard, and how appellate courts should
review district court decisions applying that standard. See 487 U.S. at
557-568. On the first point, the Court held that a legal position is "substantially
justified" so long as it has a "reasonable basis both in law and
fact." Id. at 565; see also id. at 566 n.2. As to the second, the Court
made clear that a district court's determination to award or not to award
fees is properly subject only to "deferential review" under an
"abuse of discretion" standard. Id. at 559, 563; see id. at 557-563.
Nothing in the decision below conflicts with either of those holdings.
As petitioners point out (Pet. 7), in Pierce the Court observed (in passing)
that "the fact that one other court agreed or disagreed with the Government
does not establish whether its position was substantially justified."
487 U.S. at 569. In relying on that observation here, however, petitioners
ignore both the context in which the Court made it and the circumstances
of the present case.
In Pierce, the Court noted that both the government and the respondents
cited various lower court decisions in support of their respective positions.
487 U.S. at 569. The Court held, however, only that the existing authority
as a whole showed sufficient support for the respondents' position to make
it impossible to conclude, "on the basis of these objective indications
alone, that the District Court abused its discretion in finding no substantial
justification" for the government's position. Ibid.
In this case, the district court concluded that the CFTC's jurisdictional
position was substantially justified, relying primarily on the existence
of the Second Circuit's decision in CFTC v. American Board of Trade, Inc.,
803 F.2d 1242 (1986), which was dispositive precedent in that Circuit at
the time the Commission brought suit. Pet. App. 10a.1 ABT was not only binding
as a matter of authority in the jurisdiction where the Commission brought
its case; it was also a reasoned decision by a unanimous panel of the Second
Circuit-a court with considerable expertise in matters relating to commercial
and financial regulation. Moreover, it relied on reasoning that had also
been endorsed by two other courts, including the Seventh Circuit. See ABT,
803 F.2d at 1248, citing Board of Trade v. SEC, 677 F.2d 1137, 1154 (7th
Cir.), vacated as moot, 459 U.S. 1026 (1982), and CFTC v. Sterling Capital
Co., [1980-1982 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 21,169,
at 24,783-24,784 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 1981), modified on other grounds, [1980-1982
Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 21,170 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 13,
1981).2 Those circumstances are plainly sufficient, under Pierce, to support
the court of appeals' holding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by finding that the government was substantially justified in
making in this case precisely the same jurisdictional argument that had
previously been accepted in ABT.
2. Petitioners argue further (Pet. 9-12) that the decision below with respect
to attorneys fees conflicts with this Court's earlier decision on the merits
in this case. As Pierce made clear, however, "a position can be justified
even though it is not correct"; and for EAJA purposes a position is
"substantially (i.e., for the most part) justified if a reasonable
person could think it correct." 487 U.S. at 566 n.2. Moreover, however
clear a point of law may appear after this Court has resolved it, the question
before a district court considering an EAJA application is "not what
the law now is, but what the Government was substantially justified in believing
it to have been." Id. at 561. The question on appeal from the district
court's denial of an EAJA award is even narrower: Whether that court abused
its discretion in concluding that, at the time the government acted, a reasonable
person could have thought that its position was correct. See id. at 557-563.
The courts below understood and applied those standards in this case. See
Pet. App. 3a-4a, 10a. As the district court recognized (id. at 10a), in
asserting jurisdiction over petitioners the CFTC relied on arguments that
had already been accepted by the Second Circuit, as well as by other courts.
Although this Court ultimately found those arguments unpersuasive (see id.
at 17a), they were not unreasonable-particularly in light of the important
public purposes that the Commission sought to further by pursuing remedies
for the fraudulent conduct in which petitioners had engaged. See id. at
27a (acknowledging importance of Commission's claim that "options are
particularly susceptible to fraud and abuse if not carefully policed");
id. at 10a (noting existence of factual basis for Commission's action);
CFTC v. Dunn, 58 F.3d 50, 51-53 (2d Cir. 1995) (describing evidence and
noting that "[t]he CFTC's evidentiary proffer sufficiently demonstrated
that defendants deceived investors and caused investors to receive false
reports," causing investors tens of millions of dollars in damage through
"an old-fashioned 'Ponzi' scheme, accompanied by exotic financial vocabulary"),
rev'd on other grounds, 519 U.S. 465 (1997).3 In any event, as the court
of appeals held (Pet. App. 9a-10a), it was within the district court's discretion
to reach that conclusion. Compare Pierce, 487 U.S. at 569-571 (sustaining
district court's exercise of discretion on question of substantial justification,
despite existence of cogent contrary arguments). Nothing in that determination
warrants further review by this Court.
3. The applicability of an abuse-of-discretion standard also sufficiently
answers petitioners' argument (Pet. 12-13) that the decision below conflicts
with Marcus v. Shalala, 17 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 1994).4 Although Marcus sustained
a district court's EAJA award, it held only that "a reasonable person
could agree with the district court." Id. at 1038. The court specifically
rejected any invitation "to review the district court's decision by
engaging in [its] own comprehensive analysis" of the substantial-justification
issue, noting that "particularized appellate scrutiny * * * is to be
avoided in reviewing a lower court's decision for abuse of discretion."
Ibid. Indeed, the conclusion to Marcus's discussion of the issue may be
applied just as easily to this case: "Since the district court relied
on the appropriate standard and its decision has a basis in reason, we cannot
conclude that it abused its discretion." Ibid.
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
SETH P. WAXMAN
Solicitor General
DAVID R. MERRILL
Acting General Counsel
J. DOUGLAS RICHARDS
Deputy General Counsel
C. MARIA D. GODEL
Attorney
Commodity Futures
Trading Commission
AUGUST 1999
1 The court also determined that the Commission's position had a "reasonable
basis in fact," noting that there was "no suggestion that the
CFTC failed to investigate the facts of the case or that they did not discover
wrongdoing sufficient to warrant judicial intervention." Pet. App.
10a.
2 In Board of Trade v. SEC, the court held that trading in options to buy
or sell government securities did not involve "transactions in * *
* government securities" for purposes of the Treasury Amendment, because
"[o]nly when the option holder exercises the option is there a transaction
in a government security." 677 F.2d at 1154. Sterling Capital, like
ABT, applied the same reasoning to foreign currency options.
3 There is no force to petitioners' argument (Pet. 5, 15-17) that the CFTC's
action against them involved some sort of improper "jurisdictional
gambit." Pet. 5, 17; see Pet. 15-17. To the contrary, the district
court specifically found (Pet. App. 10a) that the Commission's suit against
petitioners had a reasonable basis both in law and in fact.
4 The court of appeals properly rejected (Pet. App. 4a) petitioners' claim
(Pet. 13-15) that the court's decision in this case conflicts with its own
previous decision in FEC v. Political Contributions Data, Inc., 995 F.2d
383 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1116 (1994). Any such conflict
would, in any event, be a matter for resolution by the Second Circuit, rather
than by this Court. Cf. Wisniewski v. United States, 353 U.S. 901, 902 (1957).