The MFF's version of order includes: the request to deny the preliminary injunction, dissolve of the statutory restraining order, return back all assets including (cash, passwords and nonpublic documents) no later than five business days and return back the control of MFF website.

It is common knowledge that My Forex Fund is presently involved in a legal matter that is currently in litigation. Consequently, we at this article furnish the most recent updates concerning legal proceedings, court hearings and MFF Legal status.

At this stage both MFF and CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) submitted a letter containing their proposed version of the order, following the standard practice in the US where orders are often proposed alongside motions or subsequently.

The CFTC's version comprises three points:

1) Granting a Preliminary Injunction

 2) Asset Freeze

3) Appointment of a Permanent Receiver [with reduced responsibilities].

The MFF's version of order also includes: the request to deny the preliminary injunction, dissolve of the statutory restraining order, return back all assets including (cash, passwords and nonpublic documents) no later than five business days and return back the control of MFF website.

Then the discussion took place between the CFTC's representative and the court about the transfer of 32 million which happened from Kazmi's account which CFTC mischaracterized. The court asked him about the reason why they didn't inform the court about this transfer or even filed any modification although they knew about it within the first 2 weeks of case filing. The CFTC's answer was that they thought that it wasn't a material to the purpose of declaration, and it was a small mischaracterization of this transfer that doesn't relate to trading.

And the conversation revolved around where does the lion's share of revenues come from?  The answer in MFF's acknowledgement that the majority of its revenues come from customer registration fees, as indicated in the transcripts (95%) . However, they have informed the customers about that, and this is the way how they mitigate loss while fine tuning their skills they added that profit payouts on 'simulated accounts' were not coming from real market trades, they contend that it is not a secret and customers are well-informed about this, and any prudent trader who has read the disclosure would have comprehended this aspect.

They further stated that the CFTC did not demonstrate that customers would be concerned about the source of profit-sharing payouts as long as they were receiving them, and it is a fact that all the customers were paid and there is no evidence to the contrary.

On next Monday the discussion will be on the jurisdictional aspect of CFTC, what is MFF's argument about this matter and the reply of CFTC.

First the jurisdictional part of CFTC should be first sorted regarding RFED (Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer) registration and such registration is a regulatory requirement for individuals or entities that act as forex dealers engaging in retail transactions then the fraud comes into play which means that if there is no jurisdiction of CFTC then there is no fraud and MFF argument is so similar which will lead MFF to be back and many other prop firms will come and vice versa.

Additionally, there was talk about the allegation of CFTC that MFF failed to disclose that it is accepting Markups on the spreads which results in the customer gets worse prices for his/her execution than traders global receive from the dealer and reduces the amount of any profits owed by traders global to the customer. There is no dispute that MFF imposed markup and that the markup isn't disclosed so the court will determine if there is a duty to disclose the markup.

The CFTC's articulated their perspective on why MFF (and, consequently, all firms in this industry) mainly centers on two points. Firstly, MFF contends that it did not engage in any transactions with its customers because there was no customer-invested money in an account with MFF, and there was no risk of loss since MFF customers didn't actually risk their fees; instead, they were refunded or retained based on their trading performance. Secondly, MFF argues that there were no 'Transactions' because the majority of customer trading occurred in a 'simulated environment,' where the environment is simulated, but the trading is real. In this scenario, customers place orders, and MFF takes the opposite side of these orders. If customers won, they were paid, and if they lost, their accounts were terminated, but MFF retained their fees.

This was a summary of the latest updates regarding MFF and its legal status and stay tuned for what is coming on this case.