Current reports say U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied Gemini Trust Company LLC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s bid to unwind their January 2025 consent order on October 15, 2026, leaving the settlement in place. That means the $5 million civil penalty and permanent injunction remain in effect after a joint motion filed in May 2026 sought to vacate the order’s forward-looking terms.

Settlement Remains in Force After Reported Denial

For readers, the key point is that the January 2025 settlement remains the controlling court order. Current reports say Judge Hellerstein rejected the joint bid to vacate it, meaning the case was not reset and the consent judgment was not erased.

Primary materials already establish the framework behind that outcome. The CFTC said in January 2025 that the Southern District of New York entered a consent order against Gemini Trust Company LLC that included a permanent injunction and a $5 million civil monetary penalty. An amended joint motion filed on May 28, 2026, shows that Gemini and the CFTC sought relief from that existing judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), or alternatively Rule 60(b)(6).

The distinction is important. The October 2026 development was not a new ruling on the merits of the original allegations; it was a reported refusal to undo an order that had already been entered.

What Remains in Effect: $5 Million Penalty and Ongoing Terms

The reported outcome keeps both the monetary and injunctive components of the settlement in place. The CFTC’s January 2025 announcement put the penalty at $5 million and said the order included permanent injunctive relief.

The May 2026 joint filing helps explain why later coverage distinguishes the fine from the ongoing restrictions. In that motion, the parties said non-forward-looking provisions, including civil penalties, had already been fulfilled, while asking the court to vacate the remaining prospective terms. Current reporting says those continuing terms remain in place following the October denial.

One example cited in current reporting is that Gemini remains subject to an injunction barring false or misleading statements to the CFTC. The full October 15 order was not provided here, so the complete list of surviving terms cannot be detailed, but the practical point is clear: the matter concerns not only a historic payment already imposed, but also continuing compliance obligations.

Why the Judge’s Refusal Matters Procedurally

The unusual aspect of the dispute is that both the regulator and the company reportedly sought to undo an existing federal judgment. Even so, the court reportedly declined to lift it.

The May 2026 filing shows the mechanism the parties used: Rule 60, the procedural avenue for seeking relief from a final judgment. Current reporting says the court found that the parties had not established sufficient grounds to vacate the order. The original news flash said the judge determined that the cited circumstances existed before the settlement and that changed enforcement priorities were insufficient to withdraw a binding court order.

For readers focused on the legal status, the takeaway is narrow but significant. Based on the reported record, a regulator’s later shift in enforcement posture did not automatically remove a final consent judgment. The next concrete procedural development would be a later docketed appeal, reconsideration request, stay motion, or another post-order filing.