does not assert that any of the Relief Defendants has violated the CEA; it rather maintains that the Relief Defendants are holding funds traceable to the fraudulent activity of others. The Relief Defendants argue that because the Commission does not seek to hold them liable for violations of the CEA, they do not fall within the ambit of § 13a-1, and thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Commission’s attempt to freeze their assets. We agree with the Relief Defendants— and indeed, the Commission does not dispute — that because they are not accused of any fraud in violation of the CEA, § 13a-l did not provide the district court with subject matter jurisdiction over a separate cause of action against them. Cf. SEC v. Cherif, 933 F.2d 403, 413-14 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). No such cause of action was pursued, however.
holding that provision of securities exchange act allowing injunction against one who is violating or will violate securities laws does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over dispute with individual not accused of such violations holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions holding that such information is not material under securities law holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange holding that puffery is not actionable under the securities laws