13. Commodity pool funds received by Chulik were initially deposited into a bank account opened in January 1991 in the name of Westgate Partners at Wells Fargo Bank.

14. From in or about December 1994, Chulik transferred substantial portions of the pool's funds from the Westgate Partners' account into his personal trading account at a registered futures commission merchant ("FCM") located in Chicago, Illinois. Chulik commingled pool funds with his personal funds, and used the commingled funds to trade in futures contracts in his personal trading account. Those trades resulted in substantial losses in excess of $500,000.

15. Chulik used the remaining portions of the pool's funds in the Westgate Partners' account for his own purposes, thereby misappropriating some of the pool's funds for his own use.

16. Chulik prepared and sent periodic account statements to pool participants through the mails or by other means of interstate commerce. These statements reported fictitious profits from Chulik's trading, when in fact, Chulik's trading resulted in significant losses, not profits.

17. During the relevant time period, Chulik directed the commodity futures trading in his clients' personal trading accounts in his capacity as a CTA. Chulik made handwritten notations on the account statements of at least one of his clients which fraudulently exaggerated the actual balance in that client's personal account. In discussing the statements with that client, Chulik fortified his misleading notations by orally misrepresenting the account balance to his client.

18. From in or about March 1991 to the present, Chulik failed to disclose to investors that he was commingling their pool investments with his personal funds and diverting substantial amounts of the commingled pool funds to his own use.

19. In the course of operating the Westgate Partners commodity pool, Chulik failed to give prospective pool participants a Disclosure Document in the form required by the Commission, in violation of Commission Regulation 4.21, 17 C.F.R. � 4.21 (1999).

20. In the course of operating the Westgate Partners commodity pool, Chulik failed to provide pool participants with financial statements containing the information required by the Commission, in violation of Commission Regulation 4.22, 17 C.F.R. � 4.22 (1999).

21. Chulik's oral and written misrepresentations of fact and non-disclosures made to his customers concerning their investments, as set forth herein, were material.

22. Chulik knew that these misrepresentations of fact were false at the time he made them, and he knew that he was making material omissions of facts.

23. Chulik made these misrepresentations of fact and non-disclosures with the intent to induce reliance by his customers concerning their investments with Chulik.

24. Chulik intended to deceive his customers by making these material misrepresentations and non-disclosures.

25. Chulik's customers did in fact justifiably rely on Chulik's misrepresentations and non-disclosures to their detriment in that they would not have invested funds with Chulik and maintained and supplemented their investments with Chulik if he had not made such misrepresentations and omissions.

26. As a result of this reliance, Chulik's customers were damaged by Chulik's fraudulent representations and omissions, trading losses, and the misappropriation of customers' funds in connection with Chulik's commodity pool operation and trading activities.

III.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Pursuant to the Findings of Fact, the Court makes the following Conclusions of Law:

27. From in or about March 1991 to the present, Chulik violated Section 4b(a)(i) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. � 6b(a)(i) (1994), in that he defrauded or attempted to cheat or defraud his clients and commodity pool participants by (1) falsely reporting profitable rates of return when, in fact, substantial losses had been incurred; (2) misappropriating commodity pool funds to his own use; and (3) failing to disclose the material facts that he was diverting substantial amounts of commodity pool funds to his own use and that he was not segregating pool funds from his own.

28. During the same period, Chulik violated Section 4b(a)(ii) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. � 6b(a)(ii)(1994), in that he willfully made or caused to be made to his clients and pool participants false reports or statements, or willfully entered or caused to be entered false records, by knowingly delivering to them account statements which reported fictitious profits.

29. Commencing in or about March 1991 to the present, Chulik, while not registered with the Commission as a CPO, and without qualifying for an exemption from such registration, made use of the mails or other means or instrumentality of interstate commerce by soliciting, accepting, or receiving funds from members of the public to participate in a commodity pool formed and operated for the purpose of trading in any commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any contract market, in violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. � 6m(1)(1994).

30. From in or about March 1991 to the present, Chulik, while acting in his capacity as a CTA and CPO, violated Section 4o(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, 7�U.S.C. ��6o(1)(A) and (B)(1994), in that he, by reason of having engaged in the conduct described herein, and by use of the mails or other means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud clients or pool participants or prospective clients or pool participants, or has engaged in transactions, practices or a course of business which operated as a fraud or deceit upon such clients or participants.

31. From in or about March 1991 to the present, Chulik violated Regulation 4.20(a), 17 C.F.R. � 4.20(a)(1999), by failing to operate his commodity pool as a legal entity separate from that of the pool operator.

32. From in or about March 1991 to the present, Chulik violated Regulation 4.20(c), 17 C.F.R. � 4.20(c)(1999), by commingling the property of his commodity pool with the property of other persons, including, but not limited to, his personal property.

33. From in or about March 1991 to the present, in the course of operating the Westgate Partners commodity pool, Chulik violated Regulation 4.21, 17 C.F.R. � 4.21 (1999), by failing to provide to prospective pool participants the required Disclosure Document.

34. From in or about March 1991 to the present, in the course of operating the Westgate Partners commodity pool, Chulik violated Regulation 4.22, 17 C.F.R. � 4.22 (1999), by failing to provide pool participants with financial statements containing the information required by the Commission.

35. Under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act and Regulations by Defendant Chulik. Therefore, a permanent injunction should issue in this action.

36. Based on the facts alleged herein, there is good cause for entry of an Order of the Court directing Defendant Chulik to make restitution in the amount of $1,160,000 (one million one hundred sixty thousand dollars), together with prejudgment interest in the amount of $113,567.55 for distribution to investors in a manner approved by the Court.

IV.

ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

37. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT Defendant Chulik and any person insofar as he or she is acting in the capacity of officer, agent, servant, employer, and attorney of Chulik, and any person insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or participation with Chulik who receives actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, is permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly:

38. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT Defendant Chulik and any person insofar as he or she is acting in the capacity of officer, agent, servant, employer, and attorney of the Defendant, and any person insofar as he or she is acting in active concert or participation with the Defendant who receives actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, is permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly:

V.

ORDER OF RESTITUTION

39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT Plaintiff is awarded judgment against Defendant Chulik for restitution of customer funds in the amount of $1,273,567.55 ("Restitution Obligation"), which includes a principal amount of $1,160,000.00 (one million one hundred sixty thousand) plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $113,567.55.

40. The persons to whom restitution shall be made ("Investors") are identified in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which includes the names and last known addresses of the Investors known to date.

41. Except as provided in paragraph 42 below, such assets as have been frozen pursuant to the asset freeze order shall be tendered to a receiver ("RECEIVER") to be recommended by the Commission and appointed by the Court immediately following entry of the Order. Such assets shall be disbursed to persons eligible for restitution according to a distribution plan proposed by the RECEIVER and approved by the Court. If there are insufficient assets to pay the full amount of restitution, assets shall be distributed on a pro rata basis. Following such distribution, RECEIVER will be relieved of any obligations or duties as Receiver.

42. The property located at 632 35^th Street, Manhattan Beach, California 90266, jointly owned by Chulik and his wife Sandra Chulik (the "Manhattan Beach property") is included among non-cash assets frozen pursuant to the asset freeze order. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and the Order of the Court entered on December 15, 1999, upon the sale of the Manhattan Beach property, for which escrow closed on December 17, 1999, the net proceeds of the sale ($223,024.53) were deposited in an interest bearing escrow account. Half of the net proceeds of the sale ($111,512.27, plus any interest accrued thereon) shall be released to Sandra Chulik, and the RECEIVER shall issue a recommendation to the Court regarding the disposition of Chulik's half ($111,512.26, plus any interest accrued thereon) as restitution.

43. Upon the entry of this Order, the provisions of the Court's Consent Order of Preliminary Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Defendant Chulik, imposing a freeze on Defendant Chulik's assets, shall no longer be in effect. Upon being served with copies of this Order after entry by the Court, financial institutions and other entities holding frozen funds or other property previously controlled by Defendants shall tender same to RECEIVER if they have not already done so. Such funds shall be distributed to customers in accordance with the plan of distribution to be submitted by RECEIVER, when approved by this Court.

44. The National Futures Association ("NFA") is hereby designated as the Monitor from the date of entry of this Order for a period of six years. Notice to the Monitor shall be made to Mr. Daniel A. Driscoll, Vice President, Compliance, or his successor, at the following address:

45. Defendant Chulik shall pay the Restitution Obligation as follows: an annual payment to an account designated by the Monitor on or before July 31 of each calendar year (the "Annual Payment"), beginning July 31, 2000 and continuing for five years thereafter. At the end of the five-year payment period, Chulik's only remaining restitution obligation shall be pursuant to paragraph 52. The amount of Defendant Chulik's annual payment shall consist of a portion of: (1) his adjusted gross income (as defined by the Internal Revenue Code) earned or received by Chulik during the preceding calendar year, plus (2) all other net cash receipts, net cash entitlements or net proceeds of non-cash assets received by Defendant Chulik during the preceding calendar year. The Annual Payment will be determined as follows:

46. Such funds shall be distributed as restitution payments to the Investors in the amounts calculated by the Monitor unless, at its sole discretion, based upon the amount of funds available for distribution, the Monitor decides to defer distribution. If, at the end of the five-year period, any part of the Annual Payments has not been distributed, the Monitor shall either distribute the funds in the account or make a recommendation to the Court that the funds instead become a civil monetary penalty pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act. In the event the Court rejects the Monitor's recommendation, the funds shall be distributed as restitution.

47. In accordance with the Order of the Court, Defendant Chulik shall provide to the Monitor a complete copy of his signed income tax return filed with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), all IRS 1099 forms, and all other schedules and attachments (e.g., IRS Form W-2), as well as any filings he is required to submit to any state tax or revenue authority, on or before June�30 of each calendar year, commencing with June 30, 2000. If Defendant Chulik does not file a return, he shall provide:

48. Based on the information contained in Defendant Chulik's tax returns (and, to the extent they are provided, his sworn financial statements), the Monitor shall calculate the total amount of restitution to be paid by Defendant Chulik for that year and the specific amounts payable to each of the Investors. On or before July�31 of each year, the Monitor shall send written notice to Defendant Chulik with instructions to immediately pay the amount of restitution to the Monitor.

49. Defendant Chulik shall cooperate fully with the Monitor and the Commission in explaining his financial income and earnings, status of assets, financial statements, asset transfers and tax returns, and shall provide such additional information and documents with respect thereto as may be requested by the Monitor or the Commission. Defendant Chulik shall also cooperate fully and expeditiously with the Monitor and the Commission in carrying out all other aspects of his restitution obligation described in this Order.

50. Defendant Chulik shall not transfer or cause others to transfer funds or other property to the custody, possession, or control of any member of his family or any other person for the purpose of concealing such funds or property from the Court, the Monitor or the Commission.

51. In entering into this Order, the Commission specifically relied upon Defendant Chulik's Financial Disclosure Statement signed on January 20, 2000 under penalty of perjury in agreeing to the terms of the restitution obligation stated in this Order. If, upon motion by the Commission, this Court finds that Defendant Chulik provided statements to the Commission that failed to disclose any material asset, or materially misrepresented the value of any asset, or made any other material misrepresentation or omission regarding his financial condition, or if Defendant Chulik fails to make any installment payment of his Restitution Obligation when due, such shall be considered a default of this Order and Defendant Chulik's entire Restitution Obligation shall immediately become due and payable. The Commission may further request that the judgment herein against Defendant Chulik be reopened for the purpose of issuing an order prohibiting disposition of his assets; provided, however, that in all other respects this Order will remain in full force and effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court; and provided further that proceedings instituted under this provision will be in addition to and not in lieu of any other civil or criminal remedies as may be provided by law, including any other proceeding that the Commission may initiate to enforce this Order.

52. Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each Investor is explicitly deemed an intended third-party beneficiary of this Order, such that each Investor may seek to enforce any part of Defendant Chulik's Restitution Obligation imposed by the Order that is not satisfied at the end of the operation of the five-year payment plan, to ensure continued compliance with any provision of this Order and to hold Defendant Chulik in contempt for past violations of any provision of this Order.

VI.

ORDER CONCERNING CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES

53. Based upon Defendant Chulik's sworn representations in his Financial Disclosure Statement dated January 20, 2000 and other evidence provided by Defendant Chulik to the Commission regarding his financial condition, the Court is not ordering Defendant Chulik to pay a civil penalty pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. ��13a-1 (1994), and Rule 143.8 of the Commission's Regulations, 17 C.F.R. ��143.8 (1999). The determination not to impose a civil penalty is contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of Defendant Chulik's Financial Disclosure Statement and other evidence provided by Defendant Chulik regarding his financial condition. If at any time following the entry of this Order, the Commission obtains information indicating that Defendant Chulik's representations to the Commission concerning his financial condition were fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect as of the time such representations were made, the Commission may, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to Defendant Chulik, petition this Court for an order requiring Defendant Chulik to pay a civil penalty. In connection with any such petition, the only issues shall be whether the financial information provided by Defendant Chulik was fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect as of the time such representations were made, and the amount of civil penalty to be imposed. In its petition, the Commission may move this Court to consider all available remedies, including, but not limited to, ordering Defendant Chulik to pay funds or transfer assets, directing the forfeiture of any assets, or imposing sanctions for contempt of this Order, and the Commission may also request additional discovery. Defendant Chulik may not, by way of defense to such petition, challenge the validity of his Consent or the Final Judgment, contest the allegations in the Complaint filed by the Commission, or assert that the payment of a civil penalty should not be ordered.

VII.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

54. All notices required to be given by any provision in this Order shall be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, as follows:

55. Notice of any change of the Monitor's address shall be given in writing to all parties. In the event that Defendant Chulik moves his residence at any time, he shall provide written notice of his new address(es) to the Monitor and the Commission.

56. This Order incorporates all of the terms and conditions of the settlement among the consenting parties. Nothing shall serve to amend or modify this Order in any respect whatsoever, unless (1)�reduced to writing, (2)�signed by Defendant Chulik and a duly authorized representative of the Commission, and (3)�approved by order of the Court.

57. The Commission shall have the right to enforce the provisions of this Order, including the seeking of a contempt order.

58. The failure of any party at any time or times to require performance of any provision hereof shall in no manner affect the right of such party at a later time to enforce the same or any other provision of this Order. No waiver in one or more instances of the breach of any provision contained in this Order shall be deemed to be, or construed as, a further or continuing waiver of such breach or waiver of the breach of any other provision of this Order.

59. This Order shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs, beneficiaries and administrators of the parties.

60. Upon being served with a copy of this Order after entry by the Court, Defendant Chulik shall sign an acknowledgment of such service and serve such acknowledgment on the Commission within seven (7) days.

61. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to assure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to this action.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2000.

�

Consented to and Approved for Entry by:

�

ATTACHMENT A

Names of Customers of Mark Chulik, individually and dba Westgate Partners, MEC MANAGEMENT, AND MEC CAPITAL MANAGEMENT and Last Known Addresses