Event Details
January 01, 1987
Description
In Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as a third-party intervenor, appealed an order denying a motion to modify a protective order.
Participants (3)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conticommodity Servs., Inc. | organization | 14 | View Entity |
| Minpeco S.A. | organization | 16 | View Entity |
| Commodity Futures Trading Commission | organization | 4 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00019384.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from September 16, 2020, argues that legal precedents cited by an individual named Maxwell are inapplicable to the current case. The author contends that the cited cases (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., and Brown v. Maxwell) are distinct because they all involve appeals by non-party intervenors seeking to modify protective orders, unlike the situation in the author's case. The document details these examples to demonstrate why appellate jurisdiction was appropriate in those specific instances but not in the present one.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event