Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03535/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03535-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Respondent
Dirk L. Witter
Petitioner

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-3535

DIRK L. WITTER,

Petitioner,

v.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

No. 08-R045.

____________________

SUBMITTED JULY 22, 2016 *— DECIDED AUGUST 10, 2016

____________________

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and HAMILTON,

Circuit Judges.

WOOD, Chief Judge. This is a tale of miscommunication. 

Our task is to decide where the resulting loss must fall. It in-

 * After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that 

oral argument is unnecessary. The petition for review is thus submitted 

on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
2 No. 15-3535

volves some futures transactions that Dirk Witter, whose broker was TransAct Futures, was trying to stop. Witter contends 

that he telephoned Robert Skelton, an employee of TransAct, 

with instructions to cancel several standing orders. What is 

clear is that Skelton did not do so, and Witter lost $23,000 on 

the resulting market position. What is unclear is why Skelton 

did not act: Witter says that Skelton disregarded his instructions, but Skelton says that Witter never told him to cancel all 

seven of the working orders at issue. Witter filed a complaint 

against TransAct and Skelton with the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, see 7 U.S.C. § 18(a), but it found that 

neither one had violated the Commodity Exchange Act. See 

id. § 6(b). Witter has filed a petition for review from that decision, but we conclude that the Commission’s decision was 

supported by the evidence, and thus we deny the petition.

The events that preceded the disputed phone call began in 

the summer of 2007. Witter started using TransAct that summer to broker trades in the commodity-futures market. He 

usually placed his trades online, but he often had problems 

with his trading software, requiring him to call TransAct for 

help. On the night of August 16, 2007, his trading software 

stopped working. At the time, Witter had one open position 

(meaning that he was obligated to comply with the terms of a 

contract) in E-Mini S&P futures contracts. He also had seven 

working orders (standing instructions to enter into a contract 

if the market price reached a specified value), which he previously had set up using the trading software, for additional positions. After calls to the software company went unanswered, he phoned TransAct and spoke with Skelton, a customer support representative. 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-3535 3

The parties recall this conversation differently. According 

to Witter, he gave Skelton two instructions: (1) place a stoploss order (an instruction to limit his loss) on the open position in the E-Mini S&P, and (2) cancel all seven working orders. Skelton disputes the second instruction. According to 

Skelton, Witter told him to cancel only three of his seven 

working orders—those for Treasury and Dow Index futures 

contracts. Witter, he recalls, told him not to cancel the four 

working orders for E-Mini S&P contracts. TransAct says that 

it did not record this call. 

A problem came to light the following morning. Witter 

was still unable to log into his trading software, and so he 

called TransAct to check on the status of his last trade. He 

spoke with another customer service representative, Tom Surico. When he asked Surico to “tell me what my current position is in the mini S&P’s,” Surico responded that he was “flat” 

and that he did not see a position. TransAct recorded this call. 

When Witter logged into his online account later that day, he 

noticed that its overall value had decreased by over $23,000. 

Believing this was an error, Witter called TransAct. An agent 

told him that the values were correct because he had lost 

money on a new trade that morning. Witter responded that 

he had not made any trades that morning and wondered if 

TransAct had failed to cancel all of his working orders. The 

agent replied that TransAct had not received instructions to 

that effect. Witter ordered TransAct to “check the tapes!” of 

his phone call, which, he said, would prove that he had asked 

TransAct to cancel the seven working orders. Witter later 

learned that TransAct had not recorded the critical call. 

In his complaint to the Commission, Witter claimed that 

TransAct and Skelton violated the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
4 No. 15-3535

See 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a). He focused on their alleged failure to follow his instructions to cancel all working orders. As he put it, 

“I believe TransAct is lying. I believe that Rob [Skelton] made 

a mistake and cancelled 3 orders but failed to cancel the other 

4.” He continued, “I believe that TransAct is lying [about not 

recording his phone call to Skelton]. They have the recording 

of that conversation. The problem is that it verifies my story 

and proves them wrong.”

The case proceeded in stages. First, Witter invoked the

Commission’s summary procedure, see 17 C.F.R. 

§§ 12.200–12.210, under which a judgment officer decides the 

case based on the parties’ verified written submissions, 

id. § 12.208, and, if necessary, a hearing, id. § 12.208–09. The 

judgment officer conducted a telephone hearing, at which 

both Witter and Skelton testified. After considering the evidence, the judgment officer dismissed the complaint, finding 

that Witter had failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of that evidence. Both Witter and Skelton, he explained, 

testified sincerely—if “leavened with a bit of self-interest”—

but overall he found that Skelton’s version was more plausible 

and Witter had a “propensity to confuse trading terms” like 

“position” and “order.” The judgment officer refused to draw 

an adverse inference based on TransAct’s failure to produce a 

recording of the “one crucial conversation” because TransAct 

was not required to record the call. Finally, he added, even if 

Surico had not reminded Witter about his working orders, Surico did not violate the Commodity Exchange Act; the phone 

recording reflected that Witter had asked Surico to focus only 

on the position that TransAct had closed the night before. 

Witter appealed that adverse judgment to the Commission, see 17 C.F.R. § 12.210(e), which remanded the case for 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-3535 5

further discovery on whether TransAct had recorded the call 

between Witter and Skelton. A recording of that call, the Commission thought, would be the best evidence of whether Witter had instructed Skelton to cancel all his working orders. It 

noted, however, that if discovery about the recording proved 

fruitless, the Commission would find no clear error on the 

current record and defer to the judgment officer’s credibility 

analysis. 

On remand, Witter submitted evidence that TransAct’s 

phones were capable of recording multiple calls simultaneously on a single handset. TransAct conceded that its phones 

had this capability and that it often records calls for training 

purposes. But, it explained, its system was configured to redirect some of its incoming calls from a handset already in use 

to a handset not in use, and redirected calls did not get recorded. When Witter called, Skelton “was currently on another 

line helping another account holder,” and the phone system 

redirected Witter’s call to a nonrecording line. Considering 

the new evidence, the judgment officer concluded that Witter 

had not shown by a preponderance of evidence that TransAct 

recorded the call. Skelton, the judgment officer found, was on 

his recorded line with another customer when Witter’s call 

came in, and Witter’s call was redirected to another handset 

that did not record the call. The judgment officer therefore declined to draw an adverse inference from TransAct’s inability 

to produce a recording of the call. Relying on his original 

credibility assessment, he dismissed the complaint. The Commission, seeing no error in the judgment officer’s findings, affirmed. 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
6 No. 15-3535

In considering Witter’s petition for review, see 7 U.S.C. 

§ 18(e), we begin with a comment on the standard for reviewing the factual findings. The Commodity Exchange Act once 

required the courts of appeals to treat the Commission’s findings as conclusive if supported by the “weight of [the] evidence.” 7 U.S.C. § 9 (2009); see id. § 18(e) (referring to § 9 to 

determine procedure for judicial review); Hlavinka v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 867 F.2d 1029, 1032–33 (7th Cir. 

1989). But when Congress amended the Act in 2010 it removed that language. See 7 U.S.C. § 9 (2016); Chu v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, No. 13-73294, 2016 WL 3006934, 

at *2–4 (9th Cir. May 25, 2016). In Chu, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the removal of the standard was “purposeful, not 

accidental.” 2016 WL 3006934, at *3. That court thus turned to 

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for the new 

standard and applied the “substantial evidence” standard 

from § 706(2)(E). Id. at *4. The Commission concedes that the 

APA now governs the standard of review, but it argues that in 

this case “arbitrary [and] capricious” is the standard, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2)(A), not “substantial evidence.” We agree with the 

Ninth Circuit that it is proper to turn to the APA for the standard. As for which standard to use, putting to one side the fact 

that the difference between “substantial evidence” and “arbitrary and capricious” brings to mind angels dancing on the 

head of a pin, see, e.g., Aman v. F.A.A., 856 F.2d 946, 950 n.3 

(7th Cir. 1988), we do not need to take a position in this case. 

The Commission’s findings are supportable either way.

Witter’s first argument has both legal and factual aspects. 

He contends that the judgment officer should have drawn an 

adverse inference from TransAct’s inability to produce a recording of the call between him and Skelton. TransAct, he 

says, had a duty under both federal regulation, see 17 C.F.R. 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-3535 7

§ 166.2, and its customer agreement to record the call. And, he 

continues, the evidence about TransAct’s phone system required a finding that, because Skelton’s telephone was capable of recording multiple calls on a single handset, Witter’s

call to Skelton must have been recorded. Witter adds that if

(or to the extent that) TransAct configured its phones to redirect some incoming calls to unrecorded lines, that action was 

a reckless violation of federal regulation and the customer 

agreement. 

Witter’s legal and factual contentions are both wrong. 

TransAct had no duty to record the call between Witter and 

Skelton. Federal regulations require that, before buying or 

selling a commodity, a merchant such as TransAct must receive either “specific authorization” (the “precise commodity 

interest to be purchased or sold” and the “exact amount” of 

that interest) or “authorization in writing.” 17 C.F.R. § 166.2. 

No regulation requires the merchant to record phone calls to 

cancel previously authorized orders to buy or sell. Nor did 

TransAct’s customer agreement include any such requirement. The agreement says only that the customer gives TransAct permission to record calls, not that the company must do 

so. Moreover, although evidence showed that TransAct was 

capable of recording—and sometimes did record—multiple 

calls directed to a single handset, that evidence did not require a finding that Witter’s call to Skelton was recorded. The 

judgment officer could reasonably rely on the evidence that 

TransAct redirected some calls from one handset to another, 

non-recording line, to conclude that Witter’s was one of those 

calls. The judgment officer thus did not err in declining to 

draw an adverse inference from the missing recording. 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
8 No. 15-3535

Witter next challenges the judgment officer’s credibility 

assessment, accepting Skelton’s recollection of the circumstances and content of the phone call over Witter’s. In crediting Skelton’s version, the judgment officer explained that Witter tended to confuse trading terms. Witter responds that his 

familiarity with trading vocabulary is irrelevant to his sincerity. He adds that the officer ignored inconsistences between 

Skelton’s oral testimony and his affidavit, and between Skelton’s and Witter’s accounts of how the phones were configured. 

We give great deference to an agency’s credibility determination, overturning it only in extraordinary circumstances. 

See Staffing Network Holdings, LLC v. N.L.R.B., 815 F.3d 296, 

304 (7th Cir. 2016); Vercillo v. Commodity Futures Trading 

Comm’n, 147 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1998). The record amply 

supports the credibility ruling. Mixing up terms may not 

make Witter insincere, but it does bear on what Skelton understood Witter to be asking of him. The terms that Witter repeatedly conflated at the hearing—terms like “order” and 

“trade”—were directly related to the disputed call. Moreover, 

the judgment officer knew that Skelton’s affidavit and his oral 

testimony revealed minor inconsistencies. The officer reasonably gave more weight to Skelton’s affidavit because Skelton

wrote it shortly after the disputed call. Lastly, in accepting 

Skelton’s testimony over Witter’s about the configuration of 

TransAct’s telephones, the judgment officer reasonably took 

into account Skelton’s greater familiarity with the system. 

Witter’s last argument is about Surico. He contends that 

when he spoke to Surico the morning after Witter and Skelton

had talked, Surico wrongfully misled him about the status of 

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9
No. 15-3535 9

his working orders. But the judgment officer reasonably concluded from the phone recording that Surico understood Witter to be asking only about the position that closed the previous night, and not about his other working orders. Witter replies that TransAct tampered with the recording. But he never 

raised this contention to the Commission, and he did not 

prove tampering. Thus the record does not require holding 

TransAct liable for Surico’s statements. See 7 U.S.C. § 6b(a). 

We DENY the petition for review.

Case: 15-3535 Document: 28 Filed: 08/10/2016 Pages: 9