UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2006

o Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Commission file number: 0-18215

JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		06-1287586
(State or other jurisdiction of		(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)		Identification No.)

c/o Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC

Princeton Corporate Campus

800 Scudders Mill Road – Section 2G

Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (609) 282-6091

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Limited Partnership Units

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes x Noo

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filero Accelerated filero Non-accelerated filerx

Indicate by check mark whether registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes o No x

The limited partnership units of the registrant are not publicly traded. Accordingly, there is no aggregate market value for the registrant’s outstanding equity that is readily determinable.

As of January 31, 2007, limited partnership units with an aggregate net asset value of $20,037,442 were held by non-affiliates.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

The registrant’s 2006 Annual Report and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, the annual report to security holders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, is incorporated by reference into Part II, Item 8 and Part IV hereof and filed as an Exhibit herewith. The annual reports are available free of charge by contacting Alternative Investments Client Services at 1-877-465-8435.

JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2006 ON FORM 10-K

Table of Contents

		PAGE
	PART I

Item 1.	Business	1

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	5

Item 2.	Properties	7

Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	7

Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	8

	PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	8

Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	9

Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	14

Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	19

Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	25

Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	25

Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	25

Item 9B.	Other Information	25

	PART III

Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	26

Item 11.	Executive Compensation	29

Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	29

Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions	29

Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	30

	PART IV

Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	31

PART I

Item 1: Business

(a) General Development of Business:

John W. Henry & Co./Millburn L.P. (the “Partnership”) was organized under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act on August 29, 1989. The original public offering of the Partnership’s units of limited partnership interest (the “Series A Units”) commenced on September 29, 1989, and the Partnership commenced trading with respect to the Series A Units on January 5, 1990. A second public offering of Series B Units of limited partnership interest (the “Series B Units”) commenced on December 14, 1990. The Partnership began trading with respect to the Series B Units on January 28, 1991. A third public offering of Series C Units of limited partnership interest (the “Series C Units”) commenced on September 13, 1991. The Partnership began trading with respect to the Series C Units on January 2, 1992. The Partnership’s objective is achieving, through speculative trading, substantial capital appreciation over time.

The proceeds of each of the three series of Units were each initially allocated equally between the Partnership’s two trading advisors — John W. Henry & Company, Inc. (“JWH”) and Millburn Ridgefield Corporation (“Millburn”) (collectively, the “Advisors”).

Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC (“MLAI”) is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”), is the general partner of the Partnership. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“MLPF&S”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merrill Lynch, is the Partnership’s commodity broker. As used herein, the capitalized term “MLAI” also refers to the general partner at times when its name was MLIM Alternative Strategies LLC, as applicable.

The Advisors have been the Partnership’s only trading advisors since inception. Each Advisor was allocated 50% of the total assets of each Series as of the date such Series began trading. Subsequently, these allocations have varied over time, but currently the allocations are rebalanced to 50%/50% at the start of each quarter. All series have the same percentage allocation of assets between the Advisors. As of December 1, 1996, the Partnership placed all of its assets under the management of the Advisors through investing in two private limited liability companies (“Trading LLCs”) sponsored by MLAI, each one of which was traded by one of the Advisors. Investing assets in the Trading LLCs rather than trading directly did not change the operation or fee structure of the Partnership. The administrative authority over the Partnership remains with MLAI. Throughout this document, references to the Partnership refer to the Partnership’s investment in the Trading LLC’s.

As of December 31, 2006, the aggregate capitalization of the Partnership was $20,078,409 and the total capitalization of the Series A, Series B and Series C Units was $5,430,582, $9,327,834 and $5,319,993, respectively, and the Net Asset Value per Series A, Series B and Series C Units, originally $100 as of January 5, 1990, January 28, 1991 and January 2, 1992, respectively, had risen to $351.11 (excluding a $20 per Series A Unit distribution paid as of November 30, 1990), $284.89 and $222.10, respectively.

The highest month-end Net Asset Value per Series A Unit through December 31, 2006 was $422.69 (excluding the distributions paid in 1990) (February 29, 2004) and the lowest $100.31 (May 31, 1990); the highest month-end Net Asset Value per Series B Unit through December 31, 2006 was $343.47 (February 29, 2004) and the lowest $91.20 (May 31, 1992); the highest month-end Net Asset Value per Series C Unit through December 31, 2006 was $267.65 (February 29, 2004) and the lowest $75.87 (May 31, 1992).

(b) Financial Information about Segments:

The Partnership’s business constitutes only one segment for financial reporting purposes, i.e., a speculative “commodity pool”. The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services.

General

The Partnership trades (through its investments in the Trading LLCs) in the international futures, options on futures and forward markets with the objective of achieving substantial capital appreciation.

The Partnership has entered into advisory agreements with each Advisor (the “Advisory Agreement”). JWH trades the Partnership’s assets allocated to it in four market sectors — interest rates, stock indices, currencies and metals — pursuant to its Financial and Metals Program. Millburn trades the Partnership’s assets allocated to it pursuant to its currency program, which concentrates exclusively on currency trading, primarily in the interbank market.

One of the objectives of the Partnership is to provide diversification to a limited portion of the risk segment of the Limited Partners’ portfolios. Commodity pool performance has historically often demonstrated a low degree of performance correlation with traditional stock and bond holdings. Since it began trading, the Partnership’s returns have, in fact, frequently been significantly non-correlated with the United States stock and bond markets.

The Partnership accesses the Advisors not by opening individual managed accounts with them, but rather through investing in private funds sponsored by MLAI through which the trading accounts of different MLAI sponsored funds managed by the same Advisor and pursuant to the same strategy are consolidated.

Use of Proceeds and Interest Income

Market Sectors.

Under the direction of the two Advisors, the Partnership trades a portfolio, which is concentrated in the financial, currency and metals markets. The limited focus of the Partnership’s trading increases volatility and market risk.

Market Types.

The Partnership trades on a variety of United States and foreign futures exchanges. Substantially all of the Partnership’s off-exchange trading takes place in the highly liquid, institutionally based currency forward markets.

Many of the Partnership’s currency trades are executed in the spot and forward foreign exchange markets (the “FX Markets”) where there are no direct execution costs. Instead, the participants, banks and dealers, in the FX Markets take a “spread” between the prices at which they are prepared to buy and sell a particular currency and such spreads are built into the pricing of the spot or forward contracts with the Partnership. In its exchange of futures for physical (“EFP”) trading, the Partnership acquires cash currency positions through banks and dealers. The Partnership pays a spread when it exchanges these positions for futures. This spread reflects, in part, the different settlement dates of the cash and the futures contracts, as well as prevailing interest rates, but also includes a pricing spread in favor of the banks and dealers, which may include a Merrill Lynch entity.

As in the case of its market sector allocations, the Partnership’s commitments to different types of markets — U.S. and non-U.S., regulated and non-regulated — differ substantially from time to time, as well as over time. The Partnership has no policy restricting its relative commitment to any of these different types of markets.

Custody of Assets.

All of the Partnership’s assets are currently held in customer accounts at MLPF&S.

Interest paid by Merrill Lynch on the Partnership’s U.S. Dollar and Non U.S. Dollar Assets.

The Partnership’s (through the Trading LLCs) U.S. dollar assets are maintained at MLPF&S. On assets held in U.S. dollars, Merrill Lynch credits the Partnership with interest at the prevailing 91-day U.S. Treasury bill rate. The Partnership is credited with interest on any of its net gains actually held by Merrill Lynch in non-U.S. dollar currencies at a prevailing local rate received by Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch may derive certain economic benefit, in excess of the interest which Merrill Lynch pays to the Partnership, from possession of such assets.

Merrill Lynch charges the Partnership (through the Trading LLCs) Merrill Lynch’s cost of financing realized and unrealized losses on the Partnership’s non-U.S. dollar-denominated positions.

Charges

Each of the Series of Units is subject to the same charges. However, these charges are calculated separately with respect to each Series, each of which maintains its own Net Asset Value.

During 2006, 2005 and 2004, all of the Partnership’s assets were invested in the two Trading LLCs mentioned above.

The Partnership’s average month-end Net Assets during 2006, 2005 and 2004 equaled $22,032,107, $23,675,182, and $27,020,332, respectively.

Description of Current Charges

Recipient	Nature of Payment	Amount of Payment
MLPF&S	Brokerage Commissions	A flat-rate monthly commission of 0.708 of 1% of the Partnership’s month-end trading assets (an 8.50% annual rate) of the Partnership’s month-end assets (including the monthly interest credit and before reduction for accrued month-end redemptions, distributions, brokerage commissions, administrative fees or Profit Shares, in each case as of the end of the month of determination). Such commissions cover Sunrise’s monthly consulting fee as well as all floor brokerage and exchange, clearing and National Futures Association (“NFA”) fees incurred in the Partnership’s trading. MLAI estimates that the round-turn equivalent rates charged to Millburn during the years ended 2006, 2005 and 2004 were approximately $523, $230, and $306, respectively. MLAI estimates that the round-turn equivalent rates charged to JWH during the years ended 2006, 2005 and 2004 were approximately $234, $203, and $221, respectively.

MLPF&S	Use of Partnership assets	Merrill Lynch may derive an economic benefit from the deposit of certain of the Partnership’s U.S. dollar assets.

MLAI	Administrative Fees	A flat rate monthly charge equal to 0.021 of 1% (0.25% annually) of the Partnership’s month-end trading assets (including the monthly interest credit and before reduction for accrued month-end redemptions, distributions, brokerage commissions, administrative fees or Profit Shares, in each case as of the end of the month of determination). MLAI pays all of the Partnership’s routine administrative costs. The Partnership also pays the actual cost of the State of New Jersey annual filing fee. This filing fee is assessed on a per partner basis with a maximum charge of $250,000 per year.

Other Counterparties	Bid–ask spreads	Bid–ask spreads on forward and related trades.

Advisors	Profit Shares	Profit shares of 20% of any New Trading Profit, either as of the end of each calendar quarter or year, achieved by each Advisor’s trading account, individually, were paid to JWH and Millburn, respectively. Profit Shares are also paid upon redemption of Units. New Trading Profit is calculated separately in respect of each Advisor, irrespective of the overall performance of the Partnership.

Advisors	Consulting Fees	MLPF&S pays the Advisors annual consulting fees of 2% of the average month-end assets allocated to them for management.

MLPF&S; Others	Extraordinary expenses	Actual costs incurred; none paid to date.

Regulation

MLAI, the Advisors and MLPF&S are each subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the National Futures Association (“NFA”). Other than in respect of its periodic reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Partnership itself is generally not subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, MLAI itself is registered as an “investment adviser” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

(i) through (xii) — not applicable.

(xiii) The Partnership has no employees.

(d) Financial Information about Geographic Areas

The Partnership trades on a number of foreign commodity exchanges. The Partnership does not engage in the sales of goods or services.

Item 1A: Risk Factors

Past Performance Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. The Advisor’s past performance may be not representative of how it may trade in the future for the Partnership.

Volatile Markets; Highly Leveraged Trading

Futures and forward trading is highly leveraged, and market price levels are volatile and materially affected by unpredictable factors such as weather and governmental intervention. The combination of leverage and volatility creates a high degree of risk.

Importance of General Market Conditions

Overall market or economic conditions — which neither MLAI nor the Advisor can predict or control — have a material effect on the performance of any managed futures strategy.

Forward Trading

The Partnership will trade currencies in the forward in addition to in the futures markets. The forward markets are over-the-counter, not exchange, markets, and in trading in these markets, the Partnership will be dependent on the credit standing of the counterparties with which they trade, without the financial support of any clearinghouse system. In addition, the prices offered for the same forward contract may vary significantly among different forward market participants. Forward market counterparties are under no obligation to enter into forward transactions with a Partnership, including transactions through which the Partnership is attempting to liquidate open positions.

Illiquid Markets

Certain positions held by the Partnership may become illiquid, preventing the Advisor from acquiring positions otherwise indicated by its strategy or making it impossible for the Advisor to close out positions against which the market is moving.

Certain futures markets are subject to “daily price limits,” restricting the maximum amount by which the price of a particular contract can change during any given trading day. Once a contract’s price has moved “the limit,” it may be impossible or economically non-viable to execute trades in such contract. From time to time, prices have moved “the limit” for a number of consecutive days, making it impossible for traders against whose positions the market was moving to prevent large losses.

Trading on Non-U.S. Exchanges

The Advisor may trade extensively on non-U.S. exchanges. These exchanges are not regulated by any United States governmental agency. The Partnership could incur substantial losses trading on foreign exchanges to which it would not have been subject had the Advisor limited its trading to U.S. markets.

The profits and losses derived from trading foreign futures and options will generally be denominated in foreign currencies; consequently, the Partnership will be subject to a certain degree of exchange-rate risk in trading such contracts.

Risks of Electronic Trading and Order Routing Systems

An Advisor may from time to time trade on electronic trading and order routing systems, which differ from traditional open outcry pit trading and manual order routing methods. Transactions using an electronic system are subject to the rules and regulations of the exchanges offering the system or listing the contract. Characteristics of electronic trading and order routing systems vary widely among the different electronic systems with respect to order matching procedures, opening and closing procedures and prices, error trade policies and trading limitations or requirements. There are also differences regarding qualifications for access and grounds for termination and limitations on the types of orders that may be entered into the system. Each of these matters may present different risk factors with respect to trading on or using a particular system. Each system may also present risks related to system access, varying response times and security. In the case of Internet-based systems, there may be additional risks related to service providers and the receipt and monitoring of electronic mail.

Trading through an electronic trading or order routing system also entails risks associated with system or component failure. In the event of system or component failure, it is possible that for a certain time period, it might not be possible to enter new orders, execute existing orders or modify or cancel orders that were previously entered. System or component failure may also result in loss of orders or order priority. Some contracts offered on an electronic trading system may be traded electronically and through open outcry during the same trading hours. Exchanges offering an electronic trading or order routing system and listing the contract may have adopted rules to limit their liability, the liability of futures brokers and software and communication system vendors and the amount that may be collected for system failures and delays. These limitation of liability provisions vary among the exchanges.

The Partnership Could Lose Assets and Have Its Trading Disrupted Due to the Bankruptcy of One of the Parties

The Partnership is subject to the risk of insolvency of a counterparty, an exchange, a clearinghouse or MLPF&S. The Partnership’s assets could be lost or impounded during lengthy bankruptcy proceedings. Were a substantial portion of the Partnership’s capital tied up in a bankruptcy, MLAI might suspend or limit trading, perhaps causing the Fund to miss significant profit opportunities. There are increased risks in dealing with unregulated trading counterparties including the risk that assets may not benefit from the protection afforded to “customer funds” deposited with regulated dealers and brokers.

Item 2: Properties

The Partnership does not use any physical properties in the conduct of its business.

The Partnership’s offices are the offices of MLAI (Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, Princeton Corporate Campus, 800 Scudders Mill Road - Section 2G, Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536). MLAI performs administrative services for the Partnership from MLAI’s offices.

Item 3: Legal Proceedings

There have been no administrative, civil or criminal actions, whether pending or concluded, against MLAI or Merrill Lynch or any of its individual principals during the past five years which would be considered “material” as that term is defined in Section 4.24(l)(2) of the Regulations of the CFTC, except as described below.

On May 21, 2002, MLPF&S, with no admission of wrongdoing or liability, agreed to pay $48 million to the State of New York, $50 million to the remaining states, Washington, D.C. & Puerto Rico and $2 million to NASAA relating to an investigation conducted by the New York Attorney General concerning research practices.

On March 19, 2003, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the parent company and an approved person of MLPF&S, consented to an injunctive action instituted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). In its complaint, the SEC alleged that three years ago, in 1999, Merrill Lynch aided and abetted Enron Corp.’s (“Enron”) violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-3 and 13b2-1 thereunder, as a result of Merrill Lynch engaging in certain year-end transactions designed and proposed by Enron. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Merrill Lynch consented to the entry of an injunction enjoining it from violating the above-referenced provisions, and agreed to pay disgorgement, penalties and interest in the amount of $80 million. In its release announcing the settlement, the Commission acknowledged that in agreeing to resolve this matter on the terms described above, the Commission took into account certain affirmative conduct by Merrill Lynch.

In April 2003, MLPF&S entered into a settlement with the SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers (the “NASD”) and the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) as part of a joint settlement with the SEC, the NASD and the NYSE arising from a joint investigation by the SEC, the NASD and the NYSE into research analysts conflicts of interests. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement with the SEC, NASD and NYSE, MLPF&S, without admitting or denying the allegations, consented to a censure. In addition, MLPF&S agreed to a payment of (I) $100 million, which was offset in its entirety by the amount already paid by MLPF&S in the related proceeding with the State of New York and the other states (II) $75 million to fund the provision of independent research to investors; and (III) $25 million to promote investor education. The payments for the provision of independent research to investors and to promote investor education are required to be made over the course of the next five years. MLPF&S also agreed to comply with certain undertakings.

In March 2006, MLPF&S entered into a settlement with the SEC arising from an investigation related to MLPF&S’ retention and production of e-mail. The SEC found that MLPF&S willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 17a-4(j) thereunder. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Merrill Lynch consented to the entry of an injunction enjoining it from violating the above-referenced provisions, entered into an undertaking regarding its policies and procedures and agreed to pay a civil penalty $2,500,000.

Item 4: Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

None.

PART II

Item 5: Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Item 5(a)

(a) Market Information:

There is no established public trading market for the Units, and none is likely to develop. Limited Partners may redeem Units as of the end of each month at their Net Asset Value.

(b) Holders:

As of December 31, 2006, there were 150, 433 and 218 holders of the Series A, B and C Units, respectively, including MLAI.

The Partnership has made only one distribution ($20 per Series A Unit payable as of November 30, 1990) since trading commenced. MLAI does not presently intend to make any further distributions.

(d) Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans:

Not applicable.

(e) Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities; Uses of Proceeds From Registered Securities:

Not applicable.

Item 5(b)

Not applicable.

Item 5(c)

Not applicable

Item 6: Selected Financial Data

The following selected financial data has been derived from the audited financial statements of the Partnership.

				For the Years Ended December 31,

Income Statement Data	2006			2005			2004			2003			2002

Revenues:

Trading Profit (Loss)
Realized	$	586,600		$	496,604		$	1,696,804		$	7,494,259		$	10,429,479
Change in Unrealized	227,608			(1,111,030		)	(281,869		)	(624,127		)	1,084,889
Total Trading profit (loss)	814,208			(614,426		)	1,414,935			$	6,870,132		11,514,368
Investment Income:
Interest	1,066,585			738,940			367,819			339,103			452,175

Expenses:
Brokerage Commissions	1,905,622			2,019,957			2,309,432			2,823,906			2,442,927
Administrative and Filing fees	191,046			—			537,182			710,980			1,149,373
Profit Shares	148,563			206,410			131,611			101,873			71,850
Total Expenses	2,245,231			2,226,367			2,978,225			3,636,759			3,664,150

Net Investments Loss	(1,178,646		)	(1,487,427		)	(2,610,406		)	(3,297,656		)	(3,211,975		)
Net Income (Loss)	$	(364,438	)	$	(2,101,853	)	$	(1,195,471	)	$	3,572,476		$	8,302,393

	December 31,		December 31,		December 31,		December 31,		December 31,
Balance Sheet Data	2006		2005		2004		2003		2002

Partnership Net Asset Value	$	20,078,409	$	22,731,551	$	27,635,033	$	31,976,838	$	30,928,775
Net Asset Value per Series A Unit	$	351.11	$	357.74	$	386.22	$	400.38	$	358.55
Net Asset Value per Series B Unit	$	284.89	$	290.32	$	313.44	$	325.34	$	291.34
Net Asset Value per Series C Unit	$	222.10	$	226.29	$	244.32	$	253.53	$	227.02

All income is from investing in the Trading LLCs.

The following selected month-end net asset value per unit has been derived from financial and accounting data of the Partnership.

MONTH-END NET ASSET VALUE PER SERIES A UNIT

	Jan.		Feb.		Mar.		Apr.		May		June		July		Aug.		Sept.		Oct.		Nov.		Dec.
2002	$	269.22	$	255.81	$	242.23	$	237.12	$	258.85	$	317.98	$	345.63	$	355.58	$	378.00	$	350.39	$	333.11	$	358.55
2003	$	383.74	$	393.54	$	371.52	$	376.91	$	415.46	$	402.31	$	397.73	$	406.17	$	398.56	$	388.98	$	379.17	$	400.38
2004	$	405.87	$	422.69	$	405.35	$	363.10	$	342.77	$	328.18	$	298.88	$	303.02	$	300.68	$	329.80	$	379.21	$	386.22
2005	$	358.46	$	348.10	$	331.64	$	320.87	$	337.99	$	363.01	$	356.04	$	329.68	$	337.66	$	340.34	$	366.89	$	357.74
2006	$	362.06	$	345.38	$	366.89	$	397.66	$	389.16	$	360.54	$	348.49	$	364.77	$	354.81	$	344.85	$	357.26	$	351.11

MONTH-END NET ASSET VALUE PER SERIES B UNIT

	Jan.		Feb.		Mar.		Apr.		May		June		July		Aug.		Sept.		Oct.		Nov.		Dec.
2002	$	218.75	$	207.86	$	196.82	$	192.67	$	210.33	$	258.37	$	280.70	$	288.92	$	307.14	$	284.70	$	270.66	$	291.34
2003	$	311.82	$	319.78	$	301.90	$	306.27	$	337.59	$	326.91	$	323.18	$	330.04	$	323.86	$	316.08	$	308.10	$	325.34
2004	$	329.80	$	343.47	$	329.38	$	294.84	$	278.12	$	266.28	$	242.50	$	245.86	$	243.96	$	267.60	$	307.75	$	313.44
2005	$	290.90	$	282.50	$	269.14	$	260.40	$	274.30	$	294.60	$	288.94	$	267.55	$	274.03	$	276.20	$	297.75	$	290.32
2006	$	293.78	$	280.25	$	297.70	$	322.67	$	315.77	$	292.55	$	282.81	$	296.02	$	287.94	$	279.85	$	289.88	$	284.89

MONTH-END NET ASSET VALUE PER SERIES C UNIT

	Jan.		Feb.		Mar.		Apr.		May		June		July		Aug.		Sept.		Oct.		Nov.		Dec.
2002	$	170.48	$	161.99	$	153.39	$	150.15	$	163.92	$	201.36	$	218.76	$	225.14	$	239.33	$	221.85	$	210.91	$	227.02
2003	$	242.97	$	249.18	$	235.24	$	238.65	$	263.07	$	245.75	$	251.85	$	257.19	$	252.38	$	246.31	$	240.10	$	253.53
2004	$	257.00	$	267.65	$	256.68	$	229.80	$	216.82	$	207.59	$	189.06	$	191.68	$	190.19	$	208.62	$	239.88	$	244.32
2005	$	226.75	$	220.20	$	209.79	$	202.98	$	213.81	$	229.63	$	225.22	$	208.55	$	213.60	$	215.29	$	232.08	$	226.29
2006	$	229.00	$	218.45	$	232.05	$	251.52	$	246.14	$	228.04	$	220.44	$	230.74	$	224.44	$	218.14	$	225.99	$	222.10

Pursuant to CFTC policy, monthly performance is presented from January 1, 2002 even though all Series were outstanding prior to such date.

JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

(SERIES A UNITS)

December 31, 2006

Type of Pool: Selected-Advisor/Publicly-Offered/Non-”Principal Protected”(1)

Inception of Trading: January 5, 1990

Aggregate Subscriptions: $18,182,000

Current Capitalization: $5,430,582

Worst Monthly Drawdown(2):(10.42)% (04/04)

Worst Peak-to-Valley Drawdown(3):(29.29)% (3/04-7/04)

Net Asset Value per Series A Unit, December 31, 2006: $351.11

Monthly Rates of Return(4)

Month	2006		2005		2004		2003		2002
January	1.21	%	(7.19	)%	1.37	%	7.03	%	0.52	%
February	(4.61	)	(2.89	)	4.14		2.55		(4.98	)
March	6.23		(4.73	)	(4.10	)	(5.59	)	(5.31	)
April	8.39		(3.25	)	(10.42	)	1.45		(2.11	)
May	(2.14	)	5.34		(5.60	)	10.23		9.17
June	(7.35	)	7.40		(4.26	)	(3.16	)	22.84
July	(3.34	)	(1.92	)	(8.93	)	(1.14	)	8.70
August	4.67		(7.40	)	1.39		2.12		2.88
September	(2.73	)	2.42		(0.77	)	(1.87	)	6.31
October	(2.81	)	0.79		9.69		(2.40	)	(7.30	)
November	3.60		7.80		14.98		(2.52	)	(4.93	)
December	(1.72	)	(2.50	)	1.85		5.59		7.64
Compound Annual Rate of Return	(1.85	)%	(7.38	)%	(3.53	)%	11.67	%	33.90	%

(1) Pursuant to applicable CFTC regulations, a “Multi-Advisor” fund is defined as one that allocates no more than 25% of its trading assets to any single manager. As the Partnership allocates approximately 50% of its assets to each of JWH and Millburn, it is referred to as a “Selected-Advisor” fund. Certain funds, including funds sponsored by MLAI, are structured so as to guarantee to investors that their investment will be worth no less than a specified amount (typically, the initial purchase price) as of a date certain after the date of investment. The CFTC refers to such funds as “principal protected”. The Partnership has no such feature.

(2) Worst Monthly Drawdown represents the largest negative Monthly Rate of Return experienced since January 1, 2002 by the Series; a Drawdown is measured on the basis of month-end Net Asset Value only, and does not reflect intra-month figures.

(3) Worst Peak-to-Valley Drawdown represents the greatest percentage decline since January 1, 2002 from a month-end cumulative Monthly Rate of Return without such cumulative Monthly Rate of Return being equaled or exceeded as of a subsequent month-end. For example, if the Monthly Rate of Return was (1)% in each of January and February, 1% in March and (2)% in April, the Peak-to-Valley Drawdown would still be continuing at the end of April in the amount of approximately (3)%, whereas if the Monthly Rate of Return had been approximately 3% in March, the Peak-to-Valley Drawdown would have ended as of the end of February at approximately the (2)% level.

(4) Monthly Rate of Return is the net performance of the Series during the month of determination (including interest income and after all expenses have been accrued or paid) divided by the total equity of the Series as of the beginning of such month.

JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

(SERIES B UNITS)

December 31, 2006

Type of Pool: Selected-Advisor/Publicly-Offered/Non-”Principal Protected”(1)

Inception of Trading: January 28, 1991

Aggregate Subscriptions: $50,636,060

Current Capitalization: $9,327,834

Worst Monthly Drawdown(2): (10.49)% (04/04)

Worst Peak-to-Valley Drawdown(3): (29.29)% (3/04-7/04)

Net Asset Value per Series B Unit, December 31, 2006: $284.89

Monthly Rates of Return(4)

Month	2006		2005		2004		2003		2002
January	1.19	%	(7.19	)%	1.37	%	7.03	%	0.52	%
February	(4.61	)	(2.89	)	4.14		2.55		(4.98	)
March	6.23		(4.73	)	(4.10	)	(5.59	)	(5.31	)
April	8.39		(3.25	)	(10.49	)	1.45		(2.11	)
May	(2.14	)	5.34		(5.67	)	10.22		9.17
June	(7.35	)	7.40		(4.26	)	(3.16	)	22.84
July	(3.33	)	(1.92	)	(8.93	)	(1.14	)	8.64
August	4.67		(7.40	)	1.39		2.12		2.92
September	(2.73	)	2.42		(0.77	)	(1.87	)	6.30
October	(2.81	)	0.79		9.69		(2.40	)	(7.30	)
November	3.58		7.80		15.00		(2.52	)	(4.93	)
December	(1.72	)	(2.50	)	1.85		5.59		7.64
Compound Annual Rate of Return	(1.87	)%	(7.38	)%	(3.66	)%	11.67	%	33.88	%

JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

(SERIES C UNITS)

December 31, 2006

Type of Pool: Selected-Advisor/Publicly-Offered/Non-”Principal Protected”(1)

Inception of Trading: January 2, 1992

Aggregate Subscriptions: $40,000,000

Current Capitalization: $5,319,993

Worst Monthly Drawdown(2): (10.47)% (04/04)

Worst Peak-to-Valley Drawdown(3): (29.36)% (3/04-7/04)

Net Asset Value per Series C Unit, December 31, 2006: $222.10

Monthly Rates of Return(4)

Month	2006		2005		2004		2003		2002
January	1.20	%	(7.19	)%	1.37	%	7.03	%	0.52	%
February	(4.61	)	(2.89	)	4.14		2.55		(4.98	)
March	6.23		(4.73	)	(4.10	)	(5.59	)	(5.31	)
April	8.39		(3.25	)	(10.47	)	1.45		(2.11	)
May	(2.14	)	5.34		(5.65	)	10.24		9.17
June	(7.35	)	7.40		(4.26	)	(3.16	)	22.84
July	(3.33	)	(1.92	)	(8.93	)	(1.14	)	8.64
August	4.67		(7.40	)	1.39		2.12		2.92
September	(2.73	)	2.42		(0.77	)	(1.87	)	6.30
October	(2.81	)	0.79		9.69		(2.40	)	(7.30	)
November	3.60		7.80		14.99		(2.52	)	(4.93	)
December	(1.72	)	(2.50	)	1.85		5.59		7.64
Compound Annual Rate of Return	(1.85	)%	(7.38	)%	(3.63	)%	11.68	%	33.86	%

(2) Worst Monthly Drawdown represents the largest negative Monthly Rate of Return experienced since January 1, 2002 by the Series; a drawdown is measured on the basis of month-end Net Asset Value only, and does not reflect intra-month figures.

Item 7: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Results of Operations

General

JWH and Millburn have been the Partnership’s two Advisors since inception. Although from time to time one of the Advisors is allocated a greater percentage of the Partnership’s assets than the other as a result of differential performance, MLAI periodically rebalances the Partnership’s asset allocation to approximately 50%/50% generally on a quarterly basis.

The Advisors are both trend-following traders, whose programs do not attempt to predict price movements. Neither JWH nor Millburn has generally relied on using fundamental economic supply or demand analyses, macroeconomic assessments of the relative strengths of different national economies or economic sectors. Instead, their programs apply proprietary computer models to analyzing past market data, and from this data attempt to determine whether market prices are trending. As technical traders, JWH and Millburn base their strategies on the theory that market prices reflect the collective judgment of numerous market participants and are, accordingly, an efficient indication of market movements. However, there are frequent periods during which fundamental factors external to the market dominate prices.

If an Advisor’s models identify a trend, they signal positions, which follow it. When these models identify the trend as having ended or reversed, these positions are either closed out or reversed. Due to their trend-following character, the Advisors’ programs do not predict either the commencement or the end of a price movement. Rather, their objective is to identify a trend early enough to profit from it and detect its end or reversal in time to close out the Partnership’s positions while retaining most of the profits made from following the trend.

There are many influences on the markets that the same general type of economic event may lead to a price trend in some cases but not in others. The analysis is further complicated by the fact that the programs are designed to recognize only certain types of trends and to apply only certain criteria of when a trend has begun. Consequently, even though significant price trends may occur, if these trends are not comprised of the type of intra-period price movements, which their programs are, designed to identify, either or both Advisors may miss the trend altogether.

Performance Summary

This performance summary is an outline description of how the Partnership performed in the past, not necessarily any indication of how it will perform in the future. In addition, the general causes to which certain price movements are attributed may or may not in fact have caused such movements, but simply occurred at or about the same time.

Both Advisors are unlikely to be profitable in markets in which such trends do not occur. Static or erratic prices are likely to result in losses. Similarly, unexpected events (for example, a political upheaval, natural disaster or governmental intervention) can lead to major short-term losses, as well as gains.

While there can be no assurance that either Advisor will be profitable, under any given market condition, markets in which substantial and sustained price movements occur typically offer the best profit potential for the Partnership.

2006

The Partnership’s overall trading was profitable for the year. The Partnership experienced gains in the metals and stock indices sectors with losses being posted in interest rates and currency sectors.

The metals sector was the most profitable for the Partnership. Gains were posted beginning of the year as the

Partnership was well positioned to capture the sector’s sustained upward trend. Precious metals, gold and silver bolstered the Partnership’s returns as investors sought the safety of these markets when tensions in Iran increased over its nuclear program. Long positions in the base metals copper, zinc and aluminum added to profitability. Returns were buoyed mid-year by the gold, copper and aluminum markets that were driven by global construction, as demand, particularly in China as well as certain mining and supply disruptions. Gold moved higher as investors flocked to its safety in light of increased U.S. inflation and conflict in Iran over its nuclear capabilities. Nickel trended higher on supply concerns after global inventories tumbled to the lowest in 15 years and a strike halted output at a mine in eastern Canada. However, nickel futures posted gains up to 6.72% towards the end of year on speculation that supply will remain tight after two mining projects were delayed. Additionally, stockpiles of nickel plunged 81% in 2006 to less than two days of global usage. Short positions in copper and long positions in aluminum mitigated a portion of the losses as the year ended. Copper declined -10.01% and almost 41% for the year as inventories of the metal used in wires and pipes grew indicating weakening demand.

Stock indices posted the second highest profits for the Partnership. The markets were very choppy and exposures changed continuously. The year began as the Partnership held long positions in all 15 traded markets which benefited from the strong worldwide equity markets. The Nikkei 225 (up 3.3%) was the most profitable stock index trade as it rose to a 5 ½ year high after sustaining high intra-month volatility. Successful trading in the major U.S. indices contributed positively as well as the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average at five year highs and the Russell 2000 at all-time highs. Several markets in Asia such as Taiwan’s Taiex and Hong Kong’s Han Seng Index recorded gains mid-year only to be offset with negative performance attributed to poor trading in the Dow Jones EuroStoxx Index as stock indices fell on fears that liquidity will be pulled from the global economy as American, European, Japanese and Emerging Market Central Banks all appeared poised to hike rates further. The NASDAQ was down on concerns over fighting in the Middle East, the growing options back dating scandal and some earning disappointments. U.S. stocks rallied to a four month high after the government said employers added more jobs and wage increases slowed, easing concern that higher interest rates would lead to an economic slump. Globally, stock indices were aided by decreasing energy prices as crude oil fell over-10% and signs of slowing inflation. The Hang Seng hit an all-time high after the U.S. Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged towards the end of the year. Strong corporate earnings helped push the stock indices sector higher resulting in the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing at an all time high. The best performers as the year ended were Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, the OMX Stock Index and Frances’s CAC40 with equities aided by a decrease in energy prices as well as continued strong economic data.

The interest rate sector posted losses for the Partnership. The beginning of the year was difficult due to losses made in long positions in U.S. ten-year notes in the Japanese, German and U.S. markets. Short positions in the U.S. Treasury two-year and ten-year notes contributed with modest profits as traders stepped up bets that the U.S. Federal Reserve will raise interest rates at least two more times by June. The majority of the gains were made through short positions in the U.S. and German Bonds across the yield curve. Yields on the U.S. Treasury ten year note rose to the highest level since May 2004 after the U.S. Federal Reserve lifted its target rate for the 15th consecutive time and hinted there may be more. The top performers were the German ten-year note, U.K. long gilt and the U.S. 30-year Treasury Bond as all three markets fell for the fourth consecutive month. Signs of growth and indications that the central banks in all three markets will raise rates spurred yields higher and prices lower. Difficult trading due to short positions in all 18 instruments traded, especially in the German and Japanese ten-year notes. Broad bond markets reversed their six month downward trend in anticipation of a pause in rate hikes from the U.S. Federal Reserve Board. Global bond markets continued their strengthening trend as investors in the Japan, Europe and the U.S. rates pushed bond prices higher on optimism that the world-wide campaign of central banks to raise interest rates would contain inflation. European and Japanese government bonds fell on speculation the European Central Bank would keep raising interest rates in 2007 to combat inflation. The year ended as U.S. Treasuries advanced on concern of a standstill between the White House and Congress as Democrats gained control of both the Senate and House of Representatives.

The currency sector also posted losses for the Partnership. Short positions in the Japanese yen was the worst performance position beginning of the year after the Bank of Japan, Governor Toshihiko Fukui stated that a seven-year bout of deflation has almost ended and the central bank will gradually raise interest rates from zero percent, resulting in the Japanese yen rising over 2.50%. Traders drove the Canadian dollar lower on concerns that Canada’s interest rate disadvantage with U.S. will widen. In Mexico, the Bank of Mexico cut rates, further weakening the currency versus the U.S. dollar. The general trend in the market was the weakening U.S. dollar on concerns over inflation and the current account deficit. Profits were posted in long positions in the Euro versus the U.S. dollar and the British pound versus. the

U.S. dollar. April saw the Japanese yen strengthen 3.4% versus the U.S. dollar, the most since October 2004 and currencies posted a limited gain for the Partnership. Long positions in the British pound and euro were the hardest hit due to the fact the British pound dropped -1.14% versus the U.S. dollar on speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve would continue to raise rates faster than the Bank of England. The British pound was down versus the U.S. dollar mid-year as fading expectations for the Bank of England rate increases enhanced the appeal of U.S. treasuries compared with the British gilts, helping push the British pound lower. The U.S. dollar reached its highest exchange rate against the Japanese yen towards the end of the year however, lost money overall as the U.S. dollar weakened and plunging against most major currencies. The sell off was attributed to the San Francisco Federal Reserve indicating that there may be a shift away from U.S. assets into the assets of Europe and Japan where interest rates are projected to rise faster. China also announced it would diversify its foreign exchange reserves away from the U.S. dollar. The year ended as the Japanese yen fell against the U.S. dollar, Euro, the New Zealand dollar and the Australian dollar.

2005

The Partnership’s overall trading was unprofitable for the year. The Partnership experienced gains in two of the four sectors, with the largest gain in the stock indices.

The stock indices were the most profitable for the Partnership. The markets were very choppy and exposures changed continuously. The main drivers to performance in the first quarter were the Asian equities and selected U.S. equities. The Asian equities and selected U.S. equities markets began the first quarter with a loss only to gain in the middle part of the quarter and ending the quarter with a loss. Weak U.S. economic data and disappointing earnings reports sent global equities lower early in the second quarter. The second quarter ended with gains generated in long exposure to European and Asian stock indices. Gains were experienced early on in the third quarter as global indices rallied. Long exposure across the sector, both domestic and international, contributed to the positive performance. The largest gains came from exposure to the Nikkei and the NASDAQ. Gains continued during the quarter as the Nikkei and TOPIX rallied as the Japanese economy grew for the third straight quarter. The Nikkei rallied to a four year high. Optimism for Japanese growth and the election victory of Prime Minister Koizumi sparked a rally in Japanese equities. Stock indices suffered a significant loss at the beginning of the fourth quarter as most major global equity indices reversed from their trend upwards on fear of rising inflation and continued rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. However, the year ended with stock indices as the most profitable of all the sectors due to long positions held in all 15 traded markets throughout the end of the quarter.

The metals sector had the second highest gains for the Partnership. The sector gained during the first quarter as markets rallied in both the precious and base metals, particularly in gold, copper and aluminum. The gains from the base metals such as aluminum and copper were offset by losses in silver and gold. Base metals took a step back during the second quarter specifically in aluminum and copper. A slight gain in the middle part of the quarter due to exposure to precious metals was not enough to outweigh other losses. The second quarter ended with gold being sold off due to a strengthening U.S. dollar. Copper and gold added to the performance of this sector in the third quarter. Copper prices were driven higher on stronger global economic data and gold rallied on increased fear of inflationary pressures due to higher energy costs. Base metals, particularly copper, trended higher throughout the fourth quarter as the fear increased that demand could outweigh supply in the short-term as U.S. economic growth increased. The year ended with gold rising to 4.9% which was a 24 year high.

The interest rate sector posted losses for this Partnership. The beginning of the first quarter gains were generated in exposure to Japanese, U.S. and European fixed income. Profits were also made from short exposure to Eurodollar and U.S. Treasury note contracts. The quarter ended with gains generated at the front end of the U.S. curve, while losses were experienced in exposure to European and Japanese fixed income. A sell off of stocks and an increase in bond investments during the second quarter sparked a rally in interest rates. Long exposure to European bonds and a rally in the bond market attributed to profits. Stronger than expected economic growth in Europe, Japan and the U.S. caused a sell off in global bond markets at the beginning of the third quarter. Exposure to the German Bund, Japanese government bonds, and the U.S. Treasury bond were the detractors from performance. Concerns over Hurricane Katrina and the impact it would have on energy prices sparked a rally at the end of August in global bond markets, contributing further to losses. Volatility increased in the markets contributing to a significant loss at the end of the quarter. As it became clear that the hurricanes in the United States would not send the economy into recession, U.S. Treasury rates began to rise causing additional losses in the portfolio. Gains were made in the beginning of the fourth quarter as

concerns over central banks raising interest rates caused a sell-off in U.S., Japanese and European fixed income. The year ended with losses in short interest rates in nearly every market. Losses were incurred in all U.S. traded markets as well as in Japanese, German and UK markets.

The currency sector was the least profitable for the Partnership. The first quarter began with a loss, as the U.S. dollar strengthened against various other currencies. Losses early in the second quarter were posted as currency trading continued to be challenging and the U.S. dollar remained in a tight range. Exposure to the Euro, Japanese yen and Swiss franc were the main drivers of performance. The third quarter began with a gain as the U.S. dollar strengthened based on widening interest rate differential versus many developed countries. The currency markets were extremely volatile in reaction to China ending its policy of pegging its currency at 8.3 yuan to the U.S. dollar. China revalued the yuan by 2.1% in July. Exposure to the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc were the main drivers of performance, while exposure to the Australian dollar detracted from performance. Halfway through the third quarter, the U.S. dollar began to decline against most major currencies. The decline was a result of the expected slowdown in growth due to higher energy prices in the U.S.. The U.S. dollar strengthened against most major currencies early in the fourth quarter as a result of the possibility that the U.S. Federal Reserve would raise rates at a faster pace than previously expected after reports showed a large increase in inflation figures and data pointing to the U.S. economy expanding faster than the economies in Europe and Japan. The year ended with a loss driven by a large exposure to the Japanese yen which reacted to a strong Japanese Tankan Confidence report and accommodative hints from the Bank of Japan.

Specific trading results are not included for 2006 because the Partnership traded exclusively through investing in Trading LLCs.

2004

The Partnership’s overall trading was unprofitable for the year. The Partnership experienced gains in two of the four sectors, with the largest gain in the interest rate sector.

The interest rate sector was the most profitable for the Partnership, despite choppy trading conditions early in the year. Long exposure early in the year to most of the major global yield curves proved to generate positive results though overall exposure was light compared to historical exposure. Bond markets were fairly range bound during the second quarter however, yields on the U.S. ten-year note reached their highest levels since July 2002. U.S. Treasury markets reacted to the employment data during the third quarter with a strong sell-off, which caused the sector to reduce the long exposure to change to a net short bias. The Federal Reserve raised key interest rates by 25 basis points on September 21st and softer economic data eventually pushed longer-term maturities higher by the end of the quarter. The U.S. fixed income markets, particularly the front end, reversed their sell-off, which started in November, but rallied during the first week of December, only to reverse that trend during the last two weeks of the year.

The metals sector had the second highest gains for the Partnership. Base metals continued their upward move early in the year as the sector experienced strong demand, shrinking supply and the U.S. dollar weakening helped to drive prices higher. Strong industrial demand for copper and continued speculative interest pushed the market to a seven year high. Both industrial and precious metals generated slight losses in the second quarter due to the fact most markets were range-bound and the U.S. dollar did not provide any momentum to these markets. Industrial metals, particularly copper added to performance in the third quarter. Copper rallied based on increasing demand from China and tight supply conditions. The year ended with the sector posting a small loss as gains in industrials were outweighed by losses in long precious metals exposure.

The currency sector posted a loss for the Partnership. The currency markets continued its long trend of a weakening U.S. dollar. However, trading was very choppy and gains generated in the beginning of the first quarter were lost. Early U.S. dollar strength turned around towards the end of the first quarter and a large drop at the close of the first quarter resulted in the U.S. dollar falling to a four year low against the Japanese yen. The U.S. dollar rebounded at the beginning of the second quarter only to be range bound throughout the quarter pending the Federal Reserve’s decision on short term interest rates. The currency markets remained range bound versus the U.S. dollar throughout the third quarter. The year ended with a bearish U.S. dollar trend on the speculation that U.S. officials favor a weaker currency to shrink the record current account deficit. The U.S. dollar declined to a record low versus the Euro and fell to its lowest level versus the Japanese yen since 2000.

Stock indices were the least profitable for the Partnership. The Partnership was able to realize some gains in the beginning of the year. The main drivers to performance in this sector were the DAX and the NASDAQ indices. The markets were very choppy and exposures changed continuously. Losses were incurred during the second quarter in both the U.S. and global equity positioning due to the concerns of the imminent rate increases in U.S. interest rates. Losses in the U.S. outweighed moderate gains in some of the international markets late in the third quarter. However, stock indices posted stronger gains towards the end of the year, as markets continued an upward trend on positive economic data, a decline in energy prices and increased overall confidence. Gains were made across the U.S., Asia and Europe.

Specific trading results are not included for 2004 because the Partnership traded exclusively through investing in Trading LLCs.

Variables Affecting Performance

The principal variables, which determine the net performance of the Partnership, are gross profitability and interest income from the investments in the trading LLC’s.

During all periods set forth under “Selected Financial Data,” the interest rates in many countries were at unusually low levels. The low interest rates in the United States (although higher than in many other countries) negatively impacted revenues because interest income is typically a major component of the Partnership’s profitability. In addition, low interest rates are frequently associated with reduced fixed income market volatility, and in static markets the Partnership’s profit potential generally tends to be diminished. On the other hand, during periods of higher interest rates, the relative attractiveness of a high risk investment such as the Partnership may be reduced as compared to high yielding and much lower risk fixed-income investments.

The Partnership’s Brokerage Commissions and Administrative Fees are a constant percentage of the Partnership’s assets allocated to trading. The only Partnership costs (other than the New Jersey filing fees and the insignificant currency trading costs) which are not based on a percentage of the Partnership’s assets (allocated to trading or total) are the Profit Shares payable to JWH and Millburn separately on their individual performance, irrespective of the overall performance of the Partnership. During periods when Profit Shares are a high percentage of net trading gains, it is likely that there has been substantial performance non-correlation between JWH and Millburn (so that the total Profit Shares paid to the Advisor which has traded profitably are a high percentage, or perhaps even in excess, of the total profits recognized, as the other Advisor incurred offsetting losses, reducing overall trading gains but not the Profit Shares paid to the successful Advisor) — suggesting the likelihood of generally trendless, non-consensus markets.

Unlike many investment fields, there is no meaningful distinction in the operation of the Partnership between realized and unrealized profits. Most of the contracts traded by the Partnership are highly liquid and can be closed out at any time.

Except in unusual circumstances, factors — regulatory approvals, cost of goods sold, employee relations and the like — which often materially affect an operating business, have virtually no impact on the Partnership.

Liquidity; Capital Resources

The Partnership borrows only to a limited extent and only on a strictly short-term basis in order to finance losses on non-U.S. dollar denominated trading positions pending the conversion of the Partnership’s U.S. dollar deposits. These borrowings are at a prevailing short-term rate in the relevant currency.

Substantially all of the Partnership’s assets at the Trading LLCs are held in cash. The Net Asset Value of the Partnership’s cash is not affected by inflation. However, changes in interest rates could cause periods of strong up or down price trends, during which the Partnership’s profit potential generally increases. Inflation in commodity

prices could also generate price movements, which the strategies might successfully follow.

Except in very unusual circumstances, the Trading LLCs should be able to close out any or all of their open trading positions and liquidate any or all of their securities holdings quickly and at market prices. This permits an Advisor to limit losses as well as reduce market exposure on short notice should its strategies indicate doing so. In addition, because there is a readily available market value for the Partnership’s positions and assets, the Partnership’s monthly Net Asset Value calculations are precise, and investors need only wait ten business days to receive the full redemption proceeds of their Units.

(The Partnership has no off-balance sheet arrangements or contractual obligations of the type described in Items 303(a)(4) and 303(a)(5) of Regulation S-K.)

Item 7A: Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks.

Introduction

Past Results Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Performance

The Partnership is a speculative commodity pool. Unlike an operating company, the risk of market sensitive instruments is integral, not incidental, to the Partnership’s main line of business.

Market movements result in frequent changes in the fair market value of the Trading LLC’s open positions and, consequently, in its earnings and cash flow. The Partnership’s market risk is influenced by a wide variety of factors, including the level and volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, equity price levels, the market value of financial instruments and contracts, the diversification effects among the Partnership’s open positions and the liquidity of the markets in which it trades.

The Partnership, under the direction of the two Advisors, which it has retained since inception, rapidly acquires and liquidates both long and short positions in a wide range of different markets. Consequently, it is not possible to predict how a particular future market scenario will affect performance, and the Partnership’s past performance is not necessarily indicative of its future results.

Value at Risk is a measure of the maximum amount which the Partnership could reasonably be expected to lose in a given market sector. However, the inherent uncertainty of the Partnership’s speculative trading and the recurrence in the markets traded by the Partnership of market movements far exceeding expectations could result in actual trading or non-trading losses far beyond the indicated Value at Risk or the Partnership’s experience to date (i.e., “risk of ruin”). In light of the foregoing, as well as the risks and uncertainties intrinsic to all future projections, the quantifications included in this section should not be considered to constitute any assurance or representation that the Partnership’s losses in any market sector will be limited to Value at Risk or by the Partnership’s attempts to manage its market risk.

Quantifying the Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk

Quantitative Forward-Looking Statements

The following quantitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor from civil liability provided for such statements by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (set forth in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). All quantitative disclosures in this section are deemed to be forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor, except for statements of historical fact.

The Partnership’s risk exposure in the various market sectors traded by the Advisors is quantified

below in terms of Value at Risk. Due to the Partnership’s mark-to-market accounting, any loss in the fair value of the Partnership’s open positions is directly reflected in the Partnership’s earnings (realized or unrealized) and cash flow (at least in the case of exchange-traded contracts in which profits and losses on open positions are settled daily through variation margin).

Exchange maintenance margin requirements have been used by the Partnership as the measure of its Value at Risk. Maintenance margin requirements are set by exchanges to equal or exceed the maximum loss in the fair value of any given contract incurred in 95%–99% of the one-day time periods included in the historical sample (generally approximately one year) researched for purposes of establishing margin levels. The maintenance margin levels are established by dealers and exchanges using historical price studies as well as an assessment of current market volatility (including the implied volatility of the options on a given futures contract) and economic fundamentals to provide a probabilistic estimate of the maximum expected near-term one-day price fluctuation.

In the case of market sensitive instruments which are not exchange-traded (almost exclusively currencies in the case of the Partnership), the margin requirements for the equivalent futures positions have been used as Value at Risk. In those rare cases in which a futures-equivalent margin is not available, dealers’ margins have been used.

The fair value of the Partnership’s futures and forward positions does not have any optionality component. However, both JWH and Millburn trade options on futures to a limited extent. The Value at Risk associated with options is reflected in the following table as the margin requirement attributable to the instrument underlying each option.

100% positive correlation in the different positions held in each market risk category has been assumed. Consequently, the margin requirements applicable to the open contracts have been aggregated to determine each trading category’s aggregate Value at Risk. The diversification effects resulting from the fact that the Partnership’s positions are rarely, if ever, 100% positively correlated have not been reflected.

The Partnership’s Trading Value at Risk in Different Market Sectors

The following table indicates the average, highest and lowest trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category for the fiscal year 2006. During the fiscal year 2006, the Partnership’s average capitalization was approximately $22,032,107. As of December 31, 2005, the average capitalization was approximately $23,675,183.

The Partnership does not trade commodities or energy futures.

Fiscal Year 2006

Market Sector	AverageValue at Risk		% of Average Capitalization		Highest Value at Risk		Lowest Value at Risk

Interest Rates	$	2,423,515	11.00	%	$	3,441,752	$	1,794,844
Currencies	341,165		1.55	%	957,448		40,320
Stock Indices	298,573		1.36	%	548,558		70,594
Metals	60,374		0.27	%	157,669		19,469
TOTAL	$	3,123,627	14.18	%	$	5,105,427	$	1,925,227

Fiscal Year 2005

Market Sector	AverageValue at Risk		% of Average Capitalization		Highest Value at Risk		Lowest Value at Risk

Interest Rates	$	2,366,567	10.00	%	$	3,130,761	$	1,696,426
Currencies	545,071		2.30	%	981,619		117,105
Stock Indices	461,653		1.95	%	696,031		191,445
Metals	117,727		0.50	%	237,480		39,876
TOTAL	$	3,491,018	14.75	%	$	5,045,891	$	2,044,852

Average, highest and lowest value at Risk amounts relate to month end amounts for each month during the year. Average Capitalization is the average or the Partnership’s capitalization at the end of each month of 2006 and 2005.

Material Limitations on Value at Risk as an Assessment of Market Risk

The face value of the market sector instruments held by the Partnership is typically many times the applicable maintenance margin requirement (maintenance margin requirements generally ranging between approximately 1% and 10% of contract face value) as well as many times the capitalization of the Partnership. The magnitude of the Partnership’s open positions creates a “risk of ruin” not typically found in most other investment vehicles. Because of the size of its positions, certain market conditions — unusual, but historically recurring from time to time — could cause the Partnership to incur severe losses over a short period of time. The foregoing Value at Risk table — as well as the past performance of the Partnership — give no indication of this “risk of ruin.”

Non-Trading Risk

Foreign Currency Balances; Cash on Deposit with MLPF&S

The Partnership has non-trading market risk on its foreign cash balances not needed for margin. However, these balances (as well as the market risk they represent) are immaterial.

The Partnership also has non-trading market risk on the approximately 90%—95% of its assets which are held in cash at MLPF&S. The value of this cash is not interest rate sensitive, but there is cash flow risk in that if interest rates decline so will the cash flow generated on these monies. This cash flow risk is immaterial.

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Primary Trading Risk Exposures

The following qualitative disclosures regarding the Partnership’s market risk exposures — except for (i) those disclosures that are statements of historical fact and (ii) the descriptions of how the Partnership manages its primary market risk exposures — constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. The Partnership’s primary market risk exposures as well as the strategies used and to be used by MLAI and the Partnership’s two Advisors for managing such exposures are subject to numerous uncertainties, contingencies and risks, any one of which could cause the actual results of the Partnership’s risk controls to differ materially from the objectives of such strategies. Government interventions, defaults and expropriations, illiquid markets, the emergence of dominant fundamental factors, political upheavals, changes in historical price relationships, an influx of new market participants, increased regulation and many other factors could result in material losses as well as in material changes to the risk exposures and the risk management strategies of the Partnership. There can be no assurance that the Partnership’s current market exposure and/or risk management strategies will not change materially or that any such strategies will be effective in either the short- or long-term. Investors must be prepared to lose all or substantially all of the time value of their investment in the Partnership.

The following were the primary trading risk exposures of the Partnership as of December 31, 2006, by market

sector.

Interest Rates.

Interest rate risk is the principal market exposure of the Partnership. Interest rate movements directly affect the price of derivative sovereign bond positions held by the Partnership and indirectly the value of its stock index and currency positions. Interest rate movements in one country as well as relative interest rate movements between countries materially impact the Partnership’s profitability. The Partnership’s primary interest rate exposure is to interest rate fluctuations in the United States and the other G-7 countries. However, the Partnership also takes positions in the government debt of smaller nations — e.g., New Zealand and Australia. MLAI anticipates that G-7 interest rates will remain the primary market exposure of the Partnership for the foreseeable future.

Currencies.

The Partnership trades in a large number of currencies, including cross-rates — i.e., positions between two currencies other than the U.S. dollar. However, the Partnership’s major exposures have typically been in the U.S. dollar/Japanese yen and U.S. dollar /Euro positions. The Partnership does not anticipate that the risk profile of the Partnership’s currency sector will change significantly in the future. The currency trading Value at Risk figure includes foreign margin amounts converted into U.S. dollars with an incremental adjustment to reflect the exchange rate risk inherent to the U.S. dollar-based Partnership in expressing Value at Risk in a functional currency other than U.S. dollars.

Stock Indices.

The Partnership’s primary equity exposure is to equity index price movements. The stock index futures traded by the Partnership are by law limited to futures on broadly based indices. As of December 31, 2006, the Partnership’s primary exposures were in the S&P 500, Financial Times (England), Nikkei (Japan) and DAX (Germany) stock indices. MLAI anticipates little, if any, trading in non-G-7 stock indices. The Partnership is primarily exposed to the risk of adverse price trends or static markets in the major U.S., European and Japanese indices.

Metals.

The Partnership’s primary metals market exposure is to fluctuations in the price of gold and silver. Although the Advisors will from time to time trade base metals such as aluminum, copper and tin, the principal market exposures of the Partnership have consistently been in the precious metals, gold and silver (and, to a much lesser extent, platinum). However, gold prices have remained volatile over this period, and the Advisors have from time to time taken substantial positions as they have perceived market opportunities to develop. MLAI anticipates that gold and silver will remain the primary metals market exposure for the Partnership.

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Non-Trading Risk Exposure

The following were the only non-trading risk exposures of the Partnership as of December 31, 2006.

Foreign Currency Balances.

The Partnership’s primary foreign currency balances are in Japanese yen, British pounds and Euros.

U.S. Dollar Cash Balance.

The Partnership holds U.S. dollars only in cash at MLPF&S. The Partnership has immaterial cash flow interest rate risk on its cash on deposit with MLPF&S in that declining interest rates would cause the income from such cash to decline.

Qualitative Disclosures Regarding Means of Managing Risk Exposure

Trading Risk

MLAI has procedures in place intended to control market risk, although there can be no assurance that they will, in fact, succeed in doing so. These procedures focus primarily on monitoring the trading of JWH and Millburn, calculating the Net Asset Value of the Partnership accounts managed by the two Advisors as of the close of business on each day and reviewing outstanding positions for over-concentrations. While MLAI does not itself intervene in the markets to hedge or diversify the Partnership’s market exposure, MLAI may urge either or both of JWH and Millburn to reallocate positions managed by the two Advisors, in an attempt to avoid over-concentrations. However, such interventions are unusual, except in cases in which it appears that JWH and Millburn has begun to deviate from past practice and trading policies or to be trading erratically, MLAI’s basic control procedures consist of simply of the ongoing process of monitoring JWH and Millburn with the market risk controls being applied by JWH and Millburn itself.

JWH Risk Management

JWH attempts to control risk in all aspects of the investment process — from confirmation of a trend to determining the optimal exposure in a given market, and to money management issues such as the startup or upgrade of investor accounts. JWH double checks the accuracy of market data, and will not trade a market without multiple price sources for analytical input. In constructing a portfolio, JWH seeks to control overall risk as well as the risk of any one position, and JWH trades only markets that have been identified as having positive performance characteristics. Trading discipline requires plans for the exit of a market as well as for entry. JWH factors the point of exit into the decision to enter (stop loss). The size of JWH’s positions in a particular market is not a matter of how large a return can be generated but of how much risk it is willing to take relative to that expected return.

To attempt to reduce the risk of volatility while maintaining the potential for excellent performance, proprietary research is conducted on an ongoing basis to refine the JWH investment strategies. Research may suggest substitution of alternative investment methodologies with respect to particular contracts; this may occur, for example, when the testing of a new methodology has indicated that its use might have resulted in different historical performance. In addition, risk management research and analysis may suggest modifications regarding the relative weighting among various contracts, the addition or deletion of particular contracts from a program, or a change in position size in relation to account equity. The weighting of capital committed to various markets in the investment programs is dynamic, and JWH may vary the weighting at its discretion as market conditions, liquidity, position limit considerations and other factors warrant.

JWH may determine that risks arise when markets are illiquid or erratic, such as may occur cyclically during holiday seasons, or on the basis of irregularly occurring market events. In such cases, JWH at its sole discretion may override computer-generated signals and may at times use discretion in the application of its quantitative models, which may affect performance positively or negatively.

Adjustments in position size in relation to account equity have been and continue to be an integral part of JWH’s investment strategy. At its discretion, JWH may adjust the size of a position in relation to equity in certain markets or entire programs. Such adjustments may be made at certain times for some programs but not for others. Factors, which may affect the decision to adjust the size of a position in relation to account equity, include ongoing research, program volatility, assessments of current market volatility and risk exposure, subjective judgment, and evaluation of these and other general market conditions.

Millburn Risk Management

Millburn attempts to control risk through the systematic application of its trading method, which includes a multi-system approach to price trend recognition, an analysis of market volatility, the application of certain money management principles, which may be revised from time to time, and adjusting leverage or portfolio size. In addition, Millburn limits its trading to markets which it believes are sufficiently liquid in respect of the amount of trading it contemplates conducting.

Millburn develops trading systems using various classes of quantitative models and data such as price, volume and interest rates, and tests those systems in numerous markets against historical data to simulate trading results. Millburn then analyzes the profitability of the systems looking at such features as the percentage of profitable trades, the worst losses experienced, the average giveback of maximum profits on profitable trades and risk-adjusted returns. The performance of all systems in the market are then ranked, and three or four systems are selected which make decisions in different ways at different times. This multi-system approach ensures that the total risk intended to be taken in a market is spread over several different strategies.

Millburn also attempts to assess market volatility as a means of monitoring and evaluating risk. In doing so, Millburn uses a volatility overlay system which measures the risk in a portfolio’s position in a market and signals a decrease in position size when risk increases and an increase in position size when risk decreases. Millburn’s volatility overlay maintains overall portfolio risk and distribution of risk across markets within designated ranges.

Millburn’s risk management also focuses on money management principles applicable to a portfolio as a whole rather than to individual markets. The first principle is reducing overall portfolio volatility through diversification among markets. Millburn seeks a portfolio in which returns from trading in different markets are not highly correlated, that is, in which returns are not all positive or negative at the same time. Additional money management principles include limiting the assets committed as margin or collateral, generally within a range of 15% to 30% of an account’s net assets; avoiding the use of unrealized profits in a particular market as margin for additional positions in the same market; and changing the equity used for trading an account solely on a controlled periodic basis, not automatically due to an increase in equity from trading profits.

Another important risk management function is the careful control of leverage or portfolio size. Leverage levels are determined by simulating the entire portfolio over the past five or ten years to determine the worst case experienced by the portfolio in the simulation period. The worst case or peak-to-trough drawdown, is measured from a daily high in portfolio assets to the subsequent daily low whether that occurs days, weeks or months after the daily high. If Millburn considers the drawdown too severe, it reduces the leverage or portfolio size.

Millburn determines asset allocation among markets and position size on the basis of the money management principles and trading data research discussed above and the market experience of Millburn’s principles. From time to time Millburn may adjust the size of a position, long or short, in any given market. Decisions to make such adjustments require the exercise of judgment and may include consideration of the volatility of the particular market, the pattern of price movements, both inter-day and intra-day, open interest, volume of trading, changes in spread relationships between various forward contracts, and overall portfolio balance and risk exposure.

Non-Trading Risk

The Partnership controls the non-trading exchange rate risk by regularly converting foreign balances back into U.S. dollars on a weekly basis.

The Partnership has cash flow interest rate risk on its cash on deposit with MLPF&S in that declining interest rates would cause the income from such cash to decline. However, a certain amount of cash or cash equivalents must be held by the Partnership in order to facilitate margin payments and pay expenses and redemptions. MLAI does not take any steps to limit the cash flow risk on its cash held on deposit at MLPF&S.

Item 8: Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Selected Quarterly Financial Data

John W. Henry & Co. / Millburn L.P.

Net Income by Quarter (unaudited)

Eight Quarters through December 31, 2006

	Fourth			Third			Second			First		Fourth		Third			Second		First
	Quarter			Quarter			Quarter			Quarter		Quarter		Quarter			Quarter		Quarter
	2006			2006			2006			2006		2005		2005			2005		2005
Total Income	$	403,261		$	124,480		$	76,602		$	1,276,450	$	1,853,207	$	(1,161,816	)	$	2,740,646	$	(3,307,523	)
Total Expenses	627,072			468,096			444,495			705,568		545,346		540,479			561,126		579,416
Net Income (loss)	$	(223,811	)	$	(343,616	)	$	(367,893	)	$	570,882	$	1,307,861	$	(1,702,295	)	$	2,179,520	$	(3,886,939	)

Net Income (loss) per Weighted Average Units outstanding

Series A	$	(3.71	)	$	(5.61	)	$	(6.02	)	$	9.11	$	20.41	$	(25.35	)	$	31.24	$	(54.65	)
Series B	(3.13		)	(4.57		)	(4.76		)	7.30		16.19		(20.63		)	25.37		(44.36		)
Series C	(2.40		)	(3.59		)	(3.81		)	5.72		12.74		(16.12		)	19.66		(34.58		)

The financial statements required by this Item are included in Exhibit 13.01.

The supplementary financial information (“information about oil and gas producing activities”) specified by Item 302 of Regulation S-K is not applicable. MLAI promoted the Partnership and is its controlling person.

Item 9: Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

There were no changes in or disagreements with the independent registered public accounting firm on accounting or financial disclosure.

Item 9A: Controls and Procedures

Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the General Partner of John W. Henry & Co./Millburn L.P., with the participation of the General Partner’s Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its disclosure controls and procedures with respect to the Partnership as of the end of the period covered by this annual report, and, based on their evaluation, have concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective. Additionally, there were no significant changes in the Partnership’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls subsequent to the date of their evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Item 9B: Other Information

Not applicable

PART III

Item 10: Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

10(a) & 10(b) Identification of Directors and Executive Officers:

As a limited partnership, the Partnership itself has no officers or directors and is managed by MLAI. Trading decisions are made by the Advisors on behalf of the Partnership.

The managers and executive officers of MLAI and their business backgrounds are as follows.

Benjamin C. Weston		Chief Executive Officer and President

Robert D. Ollwerther		Chief Operating Officer and Manager

Barbra E. Kocsis		Chief Financial Officer

Robert M. Alderman		Vice President and Manager

Andrew B. Weisman		Manager

Benjamin C. Weston was born in 1954. Mr. Weston is the Chief Executive Officer, President and a Manager of MLAI and Head of MLAI’s Hedge Fund Development and Management Group at Merrill Lynch where he is responsible for all hedge fund investment activities for Merrill Lynch worldwide. Mr. Weston joined Merrill Lynch from Indeman Capital Management (IDM), a hedge fund incubation business formed in 2003 with the backing of Ritchie Capital Management and Azimuth Trust. Before founding IDM, Mr. Weston worked as a consultant for Ritchie Capital which he joined in September 2002 from Credit Suisse First Boston where he was a Managing Director and Head of the Funds Development Group. The Funds Development Group developed and launched a series of market-leading hedge funds, including three that today rank in the world’s 50 largest funds. Until 2000, Mr. Weston served on the Management Committee of CSFB’s Fixed Income Division and was Head of the Leveraged Capital Services Group, which advised a select group of hedge funds on global market strategy, optimal investment expression and risk management. Prior to transferring to CSFB in 1996, Mr. Weston was Co-Head of Credit Suisse Financial Products in the Americas (CSFP) and a Member of the Executive Board from 1990 to 1995. Before founding CSFP in New York in 1990, Mr. Weston held various senior management positions from 1983 to 1990 at Bankers Trust including Head of the Capital Markets Group in London, Head of the Equity Derivatives business in Europe and Head of the bank’s equity businesses in Asia from Hong Kong. Mr. Weston started his career at JP Morgan in 1978 where he worked in the Funding Services Group in New York and London. Mr. Weston received a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies from Miami University in 1976 and a Master of Arts in International Affairs with Honors in Economics from The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Robert D. Ollwerther was born in 1956. He is Chief Operating Officer for and a Manager of MLAI. He is responsible for Finance, Operations, Technology and Administration for the Fund and other MLAI products which invest in hedge funds. He has over 20 years of experience in the securities industry. He began his career with Coopers & Lybrand, CPAs. Since joining Merrill Lynch in 1981, he has primarily served in finance positions in the U.S. and abroad, including Chief Financial Officer for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Chief Financial Officer for Latin America and Canada, Chief Financial Officer of Global Equity Markets, Director of Institutional and International Audit and Manager of Merrill Lynch Financial Reporting. He holds a Bachelor of Science in accounting from Fairfield University and a Master of Business Administration from New York University, and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Barbra E. Kocsis was born in 1966. She is Chief Financial Officer for MLAI. She is also a Director within the Merrill Lynch Global Private Client Global Infrastructure Solutions group. Prior to that, she was the Fund Controller of MLAI. Before coming to MLAI, Ms. Kocsis held various accounting and tax positions at Derivatives Portfolio Management LLC from May 1992 until May 1999, at which time she held the position of accounting director.

Prior to that, she was an associate at Coopers & Lybrand in both the audit and tax practices. She graduated cum laude from Monmouth College in 1988 with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration – Accounting and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Robert M. Alderman was born in 1960. He is Managing Director of Merrill Lynch Global Private Client, and a Vice President and a Manager of MLAI. He is responsible for coordinating a global sales effort and managing the retail product line, which includes hedge funds, private equity opportunities, managed futures funds and exchange funds. Prior to re-joining Merrill Lynch and the International Private Client Group in 1999, he was a partner in the Nashville, Tennessee-based firm of J.C. Bradford & Co. where he was the Director of Marketing, and a National Sales Manager for Prudential Investments. Mr. Alderman first joined Merrill Lynch in 1987 where he worked until 1997. During his tenure at Merrill Lynch, Mr. Alderman has held positions in Financial Planning, Asset Management and High Net Worth Services. He received his Master of Business Administration from the Carroll School of Management, Boston College and a Bachelor of Arts from Clark University.

Andrew B. Weisman was born in 1959. He is Manager of MLAI and is head of HFDMG’s Consolidated Investment Analytics group. Mr. Weisman joined Merrill Lynch in August 2005. From April 2002 to July 2005, Mr. Weisman was a partner and director of research for Stradivarius Capital Management, and from January 1998 until April 2002, he served as Chief Investment Officer of Nikko Securities International. Mr. Weisman holds a Master of International Affairs and a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia University.

As of December 31, 2006, the principals of MLAI had no investment in the Partnership, and MLAI’s general partnership interest was valued at $209,484

MLAI acts as the sponsor, general partner or manager to eight public futures funds whose units of limited partner or member interests are registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: ML Select Futures I L.P., ML JWH Strategic Allocation L.P., ML APM Global FuturesAccess LLC, ML Appleton FuturesAccess LLC, ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC, ML Cornerstone FuturesAccess LLC, ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC and the Partnership. Because MLAI serves as the sponsor, general partner or manager of each of these funds, the officers and managers of MLAI effectively manage them as officers and directors of such funds.

(c)		Identification of Certain Significant Employees:

		None.

(d)		Family Relationships:

		None.

(e)		Business Experience:

		See Item 10(a) and (b) above.

(f)		Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings:

		None.

(g)		Promoters and Control Persons:

		Not applicable.


		Code of Ethics:

MLAI and Merrill Lynch have adopted a code of ethics, as of the end of the period covered by this report, which applies to the Partnership’s (MLAI’s) principal executive officer and principal financial officer or persons performing similar functions on behalf of the Partnership. A copy of the code of ethics is available to any person, without charge, upon request by calling 1-877-465-8435.

Nominating Committee:

Not applicable. (Neither the Partnership nor MLAI has a nominating committee.)

Audit Committee: Audit Committee Financial Expert:

Not applicable. (Neither the Partnership nor MLAI has a nominating committee. There is no listed Shares of the Partnership or MLAI.)

Item 11: Executive Compensation

The officers of MLAI are remunerated by Merrill Lynch in their respective positions. The Partnership does not itself have any officers, directors or employees. The Partnership pays Brokerage Commissions to an affiliate of MLAI and Administrative Fees to MLAI. MLAI or its affiliates also may receive certain economic benefits from holding the Partnership’s U.S. dollar assets in offset accounts, as described in Item 1(c) above. The managers and officers receive no “other compensation” from the Partnership, and the managers receive no compensation for serving as directors of MLAI. There are no compensation plans or arrangements relating to a change in control of either the Partnership or MLAI.

Item 12: Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

(a) Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners:

Not applicable (The Units are non-voting limited partnership interests. The Partnership is managed by MLAI, its general partner).

(b) Security Ownership of Management:

As of December 31, 2006, the Advisors owned 1,015 Series A Units, 1,000 Series B Units and 1,500 Series C Units and MLAI owned 159 Series A Units, 346 Series B Units and 248 Series C Units (unit-equivalent general partnership interests) which was less than 3.50% of Series A and B, except for Series C which is 4.10%, of the total Units outstanding.

None.

Item 13: Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

(a) Transactions between Merrill Lynch and the Partnership

All of the service providers to the Partnership, other than the Advisors, are affiliates of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch negotiated with the Advisors over the level of their advisory fees and Profit Shares. However, none of the fees paid by the Partnership to any Merrill Lynch party were negotiated, and they are higher than would have been obtained in arm’s-length bargaining.

The Partnership through trading LLCs indirectly pays Merrill Lynch through MLPF&S and MLAI substantial Brokerage Commissions and Administrative Fees, respectively, as well as bid-ask spreads on forward currency trades. The Partnership through trading LLCs also pays MLPF&S interest on short-term loans extended by MLPF&S to cover losses on foreign currency positions.

Within the Merrill Lynch organization, MLAI is the direct beneficiary of the revenues received by different Merrill Lynch entities from the Partnership. MLAI controls the management of the Partnership and serves as its promoter. Although MLAI has not sold any assets, directly or indirectly, to the Partnership, MLAI makes substantial profits from the Partnership due to the foregoing revenues.

No loans have been, are or will be outstanding between MLAI or any of its principals and the Partnership.

MLAI pays substantial selling commissions and trailing commissions to MLPF&S for distributing the Units. MLAI is ultimately paid back for these expenditures from the revenues it receives from the Partnership.

(b) Certain Business Relationships:

MLPF&S, an affiliate of MLAI, acts as the principal commodity broker for the Partnership.

In 2006, the Partnership expensed through its investment in the Trading LLCs: (i) Brokerage Commissions of $1,905,622 to MLPF&S, which included $582,449 in consulting fees earned by the Advisors; and (ii) Administrative Fees of $56,047 to MLAI. In addition, MLAI and its affiliates may have derived certain economic benefits from possession of the Partnership’s assets, as well as from foreign exchange and EFP trading.

The Partnership is prohibited from making any loans, to management or otherwise.

(d) Transactions with Promoters:

Not applicable.

Item 14: Principal Accountant Fees and Services

(a) Audit Fees

Aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Deloitte & Touche LLP in connection with the audit of the Partnership’s financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 were $46,857.

Aggregate fees billed for these services for the year ended December 31, 2005 were $40,000.

(b) Audit-Related Fees

There were no other audit-related fees billed for the years ended December 31, 2006 or 2005 related to the Partnership.

(c) Tax Fees

Aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Deloitte Tax LLP in connection with the tax compliance, advice and preparation of the Partnerships tax returns for the year ended December 31, 2006 were $190,000.

Aggregate fees billed for these services for the year ended December 31, 2005 were $190,000.

(d) All Other Fees

No fees were paid to Deloitte & Touche LLP nor Deloitte Tax LLP or any of their related entities during the years ended December 31, 2006 or 2005 for any other professional services in relation to the Partnership.

Neither the Partnership nor MLAI has an audit committee to pre-approve principal accountant fees and services. In lieu of an audit committee, the managers and the principal financial officer pre-approve all billings prior to the commencement of the performance of such services.

PART IV

Item 15: Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

		Page

1. Financial Statements:

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM		1

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:		2

Statements of Financial Condition as of December 31, 2006 and 2005

Statements of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004		3

Statements of Changes in Partners’ Capital for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004		4

Financial Data Highlights for the year ended December 31, 2006		5

Notes to Financial Statements		6-9

2. Financial Statement Schedules:

Financial statement schedules not included in this Form 10-K have been omitted for the reason that they are not required or are not applicable or that equivalent information has been included in the financial statements or notes thereto.

3. Exhibits:

The following exhibits are incorporated by reference or are filed herewith to this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

Designation		Description

3.01(ii)		Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of the Partnership.

Exhibit 3.01(ii):		Is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.01(ii) contained in Amendment No. 1 (as Exhibit A) to the Registration Statement (File No. 33-41373) filed on August 20, 1991, on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Registrant’s Registration Statement”).

3.02(c)		Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership, dated July 27, 1995.

Exhibit 3.02(c):		Is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 3.02(c) contained in the Registrant’s report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 1995.

10.01(o)		Form of Advisory Agreement between the Partnership, MLIM , MLPF&S and each of John W. Henry & Company, Inc. and Millburn Ridgefield Corporation.

Exhibit 10.01(o):		Is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 10.01(o) contained in the Registrant’s report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 1995.

10.02(a)		Form of Consulting Agreement between each trading advisor, the Partnership and MLPF&S.

Exhibit 10.02(a):		Is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.02(a) contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (File No. 33-30096) dated as of September 21, 1989, on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933.

10.03		Form of Customer Agreement between the Partnership and MLPF&S.

Exhibit 10.03:		Is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.03 contained in the Registrant’s Registration Statement.

10.06		Foreign Exchange Desk Service Agreement, dated July 1, 1993 among Merrill Lynch International Bank, MLIM, MLPF&S and the Partnership.

Exhibit 10.06:		Is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.06 contained in the Registrant’s report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.

10.07(a)		Form of Advisory and Consulting Agreement Amendment among MLIM, each Advisor, the Partnership and MLPF&S.

Exhibit 10.07(a):		Is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.07(a) contained in the Registrant’s report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.

10.07(b)		Form of Amendment to the Customer Agreement among the Partnership and MLPF&S.

Exhibit 10.07(b)		is incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.07(b) contained in the Registrant’s report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.

13.01		2006 Annual Report and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.

Exhibit 13.01:		Is filed herewith.

13.01(a)		2006 Annual Report and Independent Auditors’ Report for the following Trading Limited Liability Companies sponsored by MLAI:
		ML Millburn Global L.L.C.
		ML JWH Financial and Metals Portfolio L.L.C.

Exhibit 13.01(a):		Is filed herewith.

28.01		Prospectus of the Partnership dated September 29, 1989.

Exhibit 28.01:		Is incorporated by reference as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on October 10, 1989.

28.02		Prospectus of the Partnership dated December 14, 1990.

Exhibit 28.02:		Is incorporated by reference as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on December 20, 1990.

28.03		Prospectus of the Partnership dated September 13, 1991.

Exhibit 28.03:		Is incorporated by reference as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424 under the Securities Act of 1933, Registration Statement on September 23, 1991.

31.01 and 31.02		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

Exhibit 31.01
and 31.02:		Are filed herewith.

32.01 and 32.02		Section 1350 Certifications

Exhibit 32.01
and 32.02:		Are filed herewith.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

	JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

	By: MERRIL LYNCH ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS LLC
	General Partner

	By:	/s/Benjamin C. Weston
	Benjamin C. Weston
	Chief Executive Officer and President
	(Principal Executive Officer)

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed on March 30, 2007 by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities indicated.

Signature	Title	Date

/s/Benjamin C. Weston	Chief Executive Officer and President	March 30, 2007
Bejamin Weston

/s/ Robert D. Ollwerther	Chief Operating Officer and Manager	March 30, 2007
Robert D. Ollwerther

/s/Barbra E. Kocsis	Chief Financial Officer	March 30, 2007
Barbra E. Kocsis

/s/Robert M. Alderman	Vice President and Manager	March 30, 2007
Robert M. Alderman

/s/Andrew B. Weisman	Manager	March 30, 2007
Andrew B. Weisman

(Being the principal executive officer, the principal financial and accounting officer and a majority of the managers of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC)

JOHN W. HENRY & CO./MILLBURN L.P.

2006 FORM 10-K

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

		Exhibit

Exhibit 13.01		2006 Annual Report and Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Exhibit 13.01(a)		2006 Annual Report and Independent Auditors’ Report
		ML Millburn Global, LLC
		ML JWH Financials & Metals Portfolio, LLC