Office of Proceedings 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

www.cftc.gov 

* 

Servicios de Salud Mundial, * 

Complainant, * 

* 

v. * CFTC Docket No. 12-R004 

* 

Alberto Inocente Alvarez, * 

Enrique Jose Gallo, * 

Steven Alan Greenberg, and * 

Albetio Tarafa, * 

Respondents. * 

* 

ORDER 

GRANTING SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

and 

Before: 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

Philip V. McGuire, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 

Appearances: Mario Ricardo Calderon, Sr. 

President, Servicios de Salud Mundial, Guatemala City, Guatemala, 

for complainant Servicios de Salud Mundial, pro se 

Kevin M. Flynn, Esq. 

Kevin M. Flynn and Associates, Chicago, Illinois, 

for respondents Alberto Inocente Alvarez and Enrique Jose Gallo 

Nicholas P. Iavarone, Esq. 

The Iavarone Law Group, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, 

for respondent Steven Alan Greenberg 

James M. Koch, Esq. 

Gardiner, Koch, Weinberg & Wrona, Chicago, Illinois, 

for respondent Albetio Tarafa 
Introduction 

The principal complaint of Servicios de Salud Mundial ("SSM"), a corporation based in 

Guatemala at the relevant time, is that Raul Alfonso Giron Galvez ("Giron Galvez") -- an 

umegistered Guatemalan national with Mercado de Futures S.A. ("MDF"), an umegistered 

Guatemalan foreign introducing broker with discretionary authority to trade two managed 

accounts for SSM -- first, in fall of 2008, fraudulently induced SSM to open the accounts with 

Alm·on Futures and Options by effectively guaranteeing profits with exaggerated claims of 

trading expetiise, and second, from October 2006 to August 2008, concealed trading losses in 

the two Alaron accounts via misleading verbal repmis by Giron Galvez and via misleading 

written reports issued by his firm MDF. 1 SSM claims that respondents facilitated Giron 

Galvez's fraud, and seeks $2,228,633 in damages. 

SSM named as respondents: Alaron Trading Corporation d/b/a Alaron Futures and 

Options ("Alaron"), the Chicago-based futures commission merchant that cleared SSM's two 

managed accounts during the relevant time;2 Alaron principal and associated person Steven 

Alan Greenberg; Alaron associated persons Albetio Inocente Alvarez, Emique Jose Gallo and 

Albetio Tarafa, who worked in Alaron's Miami, Florida branch office; and Peregrine Financial 

Group, Incorporated d/b/a PFG Best ("Peregrine"), the Iowa-based futures commission merchant 

that purchased certain Alaron assets in May 2009, approximately eight months after active 

trading in SSM's last Alaron account had ceased and about five months after the last account had 

1 SSM filed its complaint on May 26, 2011, and filed three addenda to the complaint on June 28, August II, and 

October 14, 20 II. 2 By Order dated December 4, 2012, the complaint against Alaron was dismissed based on Alaron's petition under 

Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code filed November 30, 2012 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois (Case No. 12-47432). 

2 
been closed.3 In their answers, the respondents denied any wrongdoing or liability, and raised a 

variety of defenses, including the two-year statute of limitations affirmative defense.4 

After the conclusion of discovery, I determined that additional discovery and written 

testimony, and any oral testimony, would unlikely significantly further develop the evidentiary 

record concerning the factual circumstances which are material to the statute of limitations 

affirmative defense, and that the record suppmied the conclusion that no genuine issue may exist 

as to any fact material to the statute of limitations defense, and that respondents may be entitled 

to dismissal as a matter of law. Accordingly, pursuant to CFTC rule 12.31 0( d), I directed 

complainant to file arguments in opposition to summary disposition in respondents' favor, and 

directed respondents to file arguments in supp01i of summary disposition in respondents' favor, 

on the statute of limitations affirmative defense. 5 Both sides have filed their arguments, and this 

matter is ripe for ruling. 6 

As explained below, I have concluded that the complaint is barred by the statute of 

limitations and thus have dismissed the complaint. 

Factual Findings 

The parties 

1. Alaron Trading Corporation d/b/a Alaron Futures and Options ("Alaron") was a 

registered futures commission merchant at the relevant time, based in Chicago, Illinois. Pursuant 

to the customer agreement between Alaron and SSM, Alaron cleared SSM's account, received 

3 By Order dated July 16,2012, the complaint against Peregrine was dismissed based on Peregrine's petition under 

Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code filed July 10,2012 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois (Case No. 12-27488). 4 See Tarafa's amended answer, Alvarez's and Gallo's amended joint answer, Alaron's and Greenberg's joint 

answer, and Peregrine's answer. 

5 See Notice dated October 6, 2012 6 See A1aron's and Greenberg's Argument in Support of Summary Disposition, Alvarez's and Gallo's Argument in 

Suppmt of Summary Disposition, Tarafa's Reply in Suppmt of Summary Disposition, and SSM's Arguments in 

Opposition to Summary Disposition. 

3 
and held SSM funds, executed trades, and issued trade confirmation statements, monthly account 

statements and annual Summaries of Account Activity (Forms 1 099-B). As described below, 

Alaron electronically delivered the trade confirmation statements and monthly account 

statements, and the annual2006, 2007 and 2008 Forms 1099-B, to SSM at the e-mail address 

provided by an agent of SSM. 

Steven Alan Greenberg at the relevant time was an Alaron principal and registered 

associated person. 

Alberto Inocente Alvarez, Emique Jose Gallo and Alberto Tarafa at the relevant time 

were registered associated persons with Alaron. Alvarez a branch office manager for Alaron in 

Miami, Florida, concedes that in 2007 he may have met an agent ofMDF, but does not 

remember any details of that meeting. 7 Gallo worked at the Alaron trading desk in Miami, and 

in that capacity took orders placed by MDF, which as described below was authorized to buy and 

sell for the accounts of SSM. SSM has made vague and unsubstantiated allegations that agents 

of Alm·on helped lull SSM into opening the managed accounts by describing Giron Galvez as 

one of the "top tlu·ee traders in Latin America.''8 

Peregrine Financial Group, Incorporated d/b/a PFG Best ("Peregrine"), a futures 

commission merchant headquartered in Iowa, purchased certain Alaron assets in May 2009, 

about eight months after trading in SSM's last Alaron account had ceased and about five months 

after the last account had been closed. 

2. Servicios de Salud Mundial S.A. (Global Health Services) ("SSM") is a Guatemala 

corporation that was based in La Nueva Guatemala de la Asuncion (Guatemala City) at the 

relevant time. 

7 Tarafa asserts that this agent, the son of the representative for SSM in this proceeding, worked full-time for MDF 

at the relevant time. ~9, Tarafa's Reply in favor of Summary Disposition. 

8 Complaint, pp. 3-4, 7 and 10. 

4 
Luis Eduardo Anleu Sanchez (Anleu Sanchez), a resident of Guatemala City who 

represented on the SSM account application that he was an economist, on or about September 

25, 2006 signed and executed SSM's account-opening documents, including a standard risk 

disclosure statement, an Alaron customer contract, a personal guarantee, a consent to electronic 

transmission of statements, and a managed account authorization that gave discretionary trading 

authority to MDF. 9 SSM has not produced an affidavit by Anleu Sanchez describing any factual 

matters about which he has first-hand knowledge. 

3. As noted above, Mercado de Futures S.A. ("MDF"), a Guatemala corporation, was an 

unregistered foreign introducing broker. Jorge Marcilla Tello acknowledged the managed 

account authorization on behalf ofMDF. 10 SSM has not produced an affidavit by Marcilla Tello 

describing any factual matters about which he has first-hand knowledge. 

Ra61 Alfonso Giron Galvez ("Giron Galvez"), an unregistered Guatemalan national, is 

purpmied by SSH and Alaron to be a principal ofMDF, and purported by SSH to be the 

mastermind of the alleged fraudulent scheme. 

As described below, Giron Galvez and MDF generated monthly statements which were 

delivered to SSM without the knowledge of Alaron or its agents. 

The account opening 

4. On September 26, 2006, Anleu Sanchez, on behalf of SSM, executed Alaron accountopening documents to open two accounts through MDF and Giron Galvez: account number 

50061336 (#1336) and account number 50061340 (#1340). As previously noted, the accountopening documents included a standard risk disclosure statement, an Alaron customer contract, a 

9 See Exhibit A, Alaron's and Greenberg's joint answer. 10 See id. 

5 
personal guarantee, a consent to electronic transmission of statements, and a managed account 

authorization that gave discretionary trading authority to MDF. 11 

Alaron and JvJDF account statements 

5. As noted above, Alaron electronically delivered the trade confirmation statements and 

monthly account statements, and amlual2006, 2007 and 2008 Forms 1099-B to SSM at theemail address provided by Anleu Sanchez, the agent for SSM. 12 The Forms 1099-B were 

electronically delivered to SSM on December 31st of 2006, 2007 and 2008. 13 

SSM does not allege that the Alaron statements were inaccurate, but has made vague and 

unsubstantiated allegations that on an unknown date an unidentified individual misled an 

unidentified SSM agent into believing that the "Account Balance" on the Alaron statements, as 

opposed to "Net Liquidity," reflected the "true" value of the account. SSM also has complained 

that certain trading strategies were abusive. 14 Both allegations support the conclusion that SSM 

received the Alm·on statements. The second allegation supports the conclusion that SSM's 

agents possessed, at a minimum, a rudimentary ability to understand the key information 

repmied in the Alaron statements. 

6. MDF also sent to SSM monthly statements 15 which significantly differed from the 

Alaron statements. First, the Alaron and MDF statements covered different time frames. The 

Alaron monthly statements covered the calendar month (e.g., reporting the account balance on 

the first and last day of the calendar month). In contrast, the MDF monthly statements ran from 

mid-month to mid-month. 16 Second, the Alaron monthly statements repmied individual buys 

11 See id. 12 See Declaration of Steven A. Greenberg, filed April22, 2013. 13 See Exhibit A, Alaron's and Greenberg's joint answer. 14 Complaint, pp. 7-8. 15 See Attachment #4, SSM's Arguments in Opposition to Motion for Summary Disposition. 16 The last MDF statement for account# 1336 produced by SSM was for mid-June to mid-July 2008. 

6 
and sells of futures and options contracts during the month, reported the profit or loss for each 

trade during the month, reported the liquidation value for each open position, reported the total 

negative or positive liquidation value's for all open positions at month-end, and reported realized 

profits and losses for the month. In sharp contrast, the MDF statements did not. Rather, the 

MDF statements merely rep01ied a balance at the beginning and end of the rep01iing period, and 

reported purported "Profit Generated by Account Operation" and "Gross Profit for Operation." 

Third, although the MDF statements reported "Increases in Capital" which matched up with 

deposits reported in the Alm·on statements and appeared to have consistently captured most or all 

deposits, the MDF statements did not consistently capture most or all withdrawals. Finally, on 

this record, it cam10t be reliably determined what purpose the MDF statements were supposed to 

serve. In any event, SSM received both Alaron and MDF statements, and thus was able to 

compare the two and notice the many significant discrepancies. 

Account activity 

7. Account #1340 was traded from October 2006 to January 2007. For account #1340, 

SSM made one deposit for $199,985 (on October 19, 2006), made two withdrawals totaling 

$17,000 (on November 15 and December 13, 2006), and transferred the $159,322 account 

balance and all open positions to account #1336 (on January 31, 2007). 17 In February of2007, 

SSM closed account #1340. For account #1340, the Alaron year-end Summaries of Account 

Activity rep01ied: a realized profit of $33,087 for 2006, and a realized loss of $56,336 for 2007. 

17 Amounts are rounded to the nearest U.S. Dollar. 

7 
Account #1336 was traded from October 2006 to August 2008. For account #1336, the 

Alaron year-end Summaries of Account Activity reported: a realized loss of $39,241 for 2006; 

a realized profit of$810,285 for 2007; and a realized loss of$1,872,077 for 2008. 18 

From October 5, 2006 to July 31,2008, each month, SSM typically made a five or sixfigure deposit into account #1336. During roughly the same period, from October 20, 2006, to 

September 11, 2008, each month, SSM typically made a four or five-figure withdrawal. 19 For 

account #1336, the Alaron year-end Summaries of Account Activity repmied: a realized loss of 

$39,241 for 2006, and a realized profit of$810,285 for 2007. For January through July 2008, 

the month-end account balance ranged between $1.826 and 2.132 million. From May 1 to 

August 1, 2008, the account balance was over $2 million. However, a large Euro spread 

unwound on August 11, 2008 realized a loss of over $1.945 million. Trading activity ceased on 

August 11, 2008. On September 11, 2008, $91,295 was wired to SSM. On December 8, 2008, 

SSM closed the account, and withdrew the remaining $25,001 account balanced. As previously 

noted, for account #1336, the Alaron year-end Summary of Account Activity for 2008 reported a 

realized loss of$1,872,157. 

Aftermath 

8. SSM claims that in "late July 2009," it learned that an attorney from south Florida had 

begun advising other Guatemalans who had lost money with accounts managed by MDF that 

they may have a cause of action against Alaron and its agents. SSM futiher claims that after 

18 See id. 19 Alm·on produced monthly account statements for October 2006 to March 2007, and August 2007 to September 

2008. See attachments to Alm·on's and Greenberg's corrected answer, filed April2, 2013. 

8 
"several months of research," it would not be until December 24, 2009 that it became 

"completely sure about Alaron's wrongdoing." 20 

9. The Complaint for Reparations was filed on May 26, 2011, over two years and five 

months after SSM had received the Form 1099-B for 2008, and about two years and eight 

months after August 11, 2008, when the account was nearly decimated and active trading had 

ceased. 

Conclusions 

Summary disposition is appropriate when three conditions are met: one, there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact; two, there is no need for further factual development; and 

three, the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. See Levi-Zeligman v. Merrill 

Lynch Futures, Inc., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 26,236, at 42,031 (CFTC 1994). In 

appropriate circumstances, statute of limitations issues may be resolved on a summary basis, as 

long as there is no significant doubt as to whether the evidentiary record is sufficiently developed 

for reliable resolution of limitations-related issues. See Cheney v. Greco, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. 

~ 30,761, at 61,594 (CFTC 2008), and Stoffel v. Interstate/Johnson-Lane Cmp., Comm. Fut. L. 

Rep.~ 26,267, at 42,252-42,253 (CFTC 1995). 

A cause of action for fraud accrues, and the two-year limitations period under Section 

14(a)(l) ofthe Commodity Exchange Act begins to run,21 when a complainant discovers 

wrongful conduct resulting in monetary losses, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should 

have discovered the wrongful activity. JvfcGough v. Bradford, et al., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. 

~ 28,265, at 50,601-50,603 (CFTC 2000). A determination ofwhen wrongful activity should 

2

° Complaint Addendum dated June 27,2011, p.3-4. 21 Section 14(a)(l) ofthe Act provides: "Any person complaining of any violation of any provision of the Act or 

any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to this Act by any person who is registered under this Act may, at any 

time within two years after the cause of action accrues, apply to the Commission for an order awarding [damages]." 

9 
have been discovered is based on the pmiicular facts and circumstances of the case, including: 

one, the relationship of the parties; two, the nature of the wrongful activity; three, the 

complainant's opportunity to discover the wrongful activity; and four, the actions taken by the 

pmiies subsequent to the wrongful activity. Id. The determination of when a cause of action 

accrues turns on when a customer discovers those facts enabling him to detect a general 

fraudulent scheme, rather than when the customer grasps the full details of the scheme or 

determines the available legal remedies. See, e.g., Cook v. Monex International, Ltd., Comm. 

Fut. L. Rep. 'If 22,532 (CFTC 1985), reconsideration denied Comm. Fut. L. Rep. 'If 23,078 

(CFTC 1986); Martin v. Shearson Lehman/American Express, Inc., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. '1\23,354 

(CFTC 1986); and Marracinni v. Conti-Commodity Services, Inc., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. 

'1\23,7933 (CFTC 1986). 

Here, it is reasonable to conclude that an agent working for SSM would have been able to 

comprehend the trading results and account status accurately repmied by the Alaron account 

statements at the relevant time. Thus, SSM presumably knew the existence and extent of the 

reported catastrophic losses on August 11, 2008, which left the account almost totally dissipated. 

This information was confirmed and reinforced no later than December 31, 2008, when SSM 

received the Form 1099-B repmiing over $1.8 million in losses for 2008, and soon after SSM 

had withdrawn the relatively meager account balance. Since this substantial financial loss went 

directly to the hemt of SSM's allegation that Galvez Giron had effectively guaranteed profits and 

had concealed trading losses, it is reasonable to conclude that SSM's cause of action against the 

U.S. respondents for any violations of the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with the 

solicitation, and the trading and handling, of SSM' s account accrued as early as August 11, 2008, 

when SSM learned of any dramatic discrepancies between the Alaron account statements, which 

reported the near total losses, and Galvez Giron's verbal statements and MDM's written 

10 
statement, which purportedly falsely reported profits, and no later than December 31, 2008, 

when SSM received the Form 1099 re-confirming the massive losses in account #1336. Thus, 

even if the date most favorable to SSM- December 31, 2008 -- is determined to be the accrual 

date for SSM's claim, the date that complainant filed the complaint, May 26, 2011, is well over 

five months past the two-year deadline, and the complaint is thus time-barred unless SSM can 

invoke equitable estoppel or equitable tolling. 

Equitable estoppel focuses on any misleading actions by a respondent. In this 

connection, SSM has not produced any reliable evidence establishing that respondents ever made 

any false promises after August 11, 2008 to resolve the dispute, or otherwise said anything to 

dissuade or delay complainant from initiating legal action. 

Equitable tolling focuses on the reasonableness of the complainant's action or inaction. 

The factors considered in determining whether a late filing is excused by principles of equitable 

tolling include the reasonableness of a complainant's continuing ignorance of the filing 

requirement and his diligence in pursuing his rights. In this connection, SSM has not produced 

any reliable evidence establishing that SSM acted diligently in investigating and pursuing 

available legal remedies against U.S. registrants. The fact that a Florida attorney in 2009 

contacted various customers of Giron Galvez to discuss legal action did not re-stmi the clock, but 

rather merely further alerted SSM to the fact that it had reason to conclude that it may well have 

been defrauded by Giron Galvez in 2006, 2007 and 2008, and thus that SSM must act diligently 

to investigate and pursue any legal claim. See Martin, supra. (For the statute of limitations 

period to begin running, the customer need not discover all the elements of the fraud, but only 

those facts enabling him to detect a general fraudulent scheme.) 

11 
ORDER 

Respondents have established that complainant did not timely file the complaint, and that 

no basis exists for application of principals of equitable tolling or estoppel. Thus, it is concluded 

that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, and the complaint is hereby dismissed. 

Dated April24, 2013. 

Philip cGuire, 

Judgment Officer 

12