Anderson v. Stephens

This case presents an appeal by two individuals who invested in a fraudulent commodity futures investment group. They claim that the district court erred by ordering that their checks, negotiated after the futures bank account was frozen, be included with other funds in the account for the purposes of a pro rata distribution to all investors. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

I

Between January 1985 and March 26, 1986, the defendant below, Warren “Ricky” Franklin (“Franklin”), operated the Futures Investment Group (“FIG”), an unregistered commodity…