U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

www.cftc.gov 

Office of Proceedings 

THE CONWAY FAMILY TRUST, 

Complainant, 

* 

* 

* 

* 

""0 

-l 

.") 

'i \.1 

·. ~ 0 

• I •..- - .,. ..... ~· --:. 

: 

v. * CFTC Docket No. 12-ROo!{. 

* 

DORMAN TRADING LLC, 

Respondent. 

* 

* 

* 

Before: 

Appearances: 

Order on Summary Disposition 

Philip V. McGuire, 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Washington, DC 

G. Patrick Connors, III, Esq. 

Connors & Associates, Encinitas, California, 

for the Conway Family Trust, Complainant 

Mitchell B. Goldberg, Esq. and John D. Ruark, Esq. 

!'-,.) 

·-~ 

0 

Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, 

for Dorman Trading LLC, Respondent. 

Introduction 

The Conway Family Trust seeks to recover approximately $3.687 million in 

trading losses, most of which were realized between October 13 and 15, 2008, in the 

midst of the global financial meltdown. The principal claim of Phyllis and Michael 

Conway, Co-Trustees of the Conway Family Trust (referred to collectively as the 

"Complainants") is that Dorman Trading LLC, a futures commission merchant is liable 

for the alleged fraudulent guarantees and fiduciary breaches of an unregistered agent of 

the commodity trading advisor ("CTA") that they had approved to trade their 

~;'J 

~--) ~~~ -·11 jlj 

--!-

ci :-; 

. :I 

CJ 
discretionary Dorman account. Complainants also assert that the two-year statute of 

limitations set in Section 14(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act ("Act") $ould be 

tolled for the period that their claim against Dorman and others arising from the same 

set of factual circumstances was pending in the NFA arbitration forum. In that matter, 

the NF A ultimately disregarded, without explanation, Complainants' request to dismiss 

the claim against Dorman without prejudice, and dismissed with prejudice 

Complainants' arbitration claim against Dorman, based on the one-year contractual 

limitations period in the Dorman customer contract. By doing so, the NF A highlighted 

a significant distinction between the NF A arbitration dispute resolution forum and the 

CFTC reparations dispute resolution forum: in the CFTC reparations forum, such oneyear contractual limitations provisions as found in the Dorman customer contract are 

deemed null and void, and unenforceable. McGough v. Bradford, Comm. Fut. L. Rep. 

~ 28,265, 2000 WL 33675749 (CFTC 2ooo) ("[T]he Commission has always viewed the 

reparations forum as an important supplement to the alternative forums offered by 

courts and arbitration and believe[s] that contractual agreements waiving a customer's 

right to submit claims to the reparations forums [are]void."). 

In reply, Dorman: denies liability for the unregistered agent of the CTA on a 

variety of theories; asserts that Complainants waived their CFTC reparations complaint 

by first bringing an NFA claim; asserts that Complainants' reparations complaint is 

barred by the one-year contractual limitations period in the Dorman customer contract; 

and further asserts that the two-year statute of limitations should not be tolled for the 

period that Complainants' NFA arbitration claim against Dorman was pending in the 

2 
NFA arbitration, and thus that Complainants' reparations complaint is barred by the 

statute of limitations. 

As explained below, after carefully reviewing the parties' evidence and 

arguments, it has been concluded that the complaint is barred by the statute of 

limitations and that Dorman is entitled to summary disposition in its favor. 

Factual Findings 

The parties 

1. Phyllis W. Conway and Michael H. Conway III, residents of Rancho Santa Fe, 

California, are Co-Trustees of the Conway Family Trust (referred to collectively as the 

"Complainants"). When they opened their discretionary account with Dorman Trading 

LLC in February 2008, the Conways executed a Client Information form in which they 

indicated that their net worth exceeded $so million. Thus, Complainants qualified as an 

Eligible Contract Participant ("ECP") within the definition of7 U.S.C. § la and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 166.5(g). 

2. Dorman Trading LLC ("Dorman"), located in Chicago, Illinois, is registered as 

a futures commission merchant ("FCM"). Complainant's account with Dorman is the 

account at issue. 

3· Trade Angle Advisors LLC ("TAA"), located in Raleigh, North Carolina, was a 

registered commodity trading advisor ("CTA") from August 2006 to March 2009. 

Complainants' selected TAA to act as the CTA for their Dorman account. 

4· Keith Doolittle, during the relevant time, was the listed Principal ofT AA. The 

TAA Disclosure Document dated June 30, 2008 disclosed Doolittle's background as a 

3 
software engineer I analyst whose previous wor~ had been in the design and 

implementation of algorithms in exchange traded products. 

s. John Logan was president ofT A Strategies, an unregistered affiliate ofTAA. 

According to Complainants, Logan was their principal contact at TAA, and unidentified 

.. 

third parties advised them, after the fact, that Logan had placed trades for their account 

that were inconsistent with TAA's trading system. As discussed in more detail below, 

Logan has never been registered. 

Opening and Funding the Account 

6. Complainants signed and executed the following account-opening documents 

and agreements: 

(1) Dorman Discretionary Trading Account Authorization/Power of 

Attorney dated April1, 2008; 

(2) TAA Client Information sheet dated February 29, 2008; 

(3) TAA Limited Power of Attorney dated February 29, 2008; 

(4) TAA Managed Account Agreement dated February 29, 2008; 

(5) TAA Managed Account Agreement dated June 13, 2008; 

(6) TAA Managed Account Agreement dated September 26, 2008; 

(7) TAAAcknowledgment of Receipt of Disclosure Document dated 

February 29, 2008; 

(8) TAA Acknowledgment of Receipt of Disclosure Document dated 

September 26 2008; 

(9) TAA Fee Payment Authorization dated February 29, 2008; 

(10) TAA Fee Payment Authorization dated September 26, 2008; 

4 
(11) Disclosure Document of Trade Angle International LLC which was 

received by the Complainants on or about February 29, 200S; and 

(12) TAA Disclosure Document dated June 30, 2008. 

The TAA agreements appointed TAA as Complainants' CTA with full power and 

authority to enter into contracts for the purchase, receipt, sale (including short sale) and 

delivery of commodity futures contracts, commodities, options on commodity futures 

contracts, physical commodities, securities, equity, debt and related investments on 

margin or otherwise, in their trading accounts with Dorman. 

7· Complainants initially deposited $400,000 in March 2008, and then an 

additional $400,000 in May 2014. By September 25, 2008, their net liquidating equity 

was $1.275 million, representing a return of about 59.4%. On September 26, 2008, 

Complainants deposited an additional $4,00o,ooo, bringing total deposits to 

$4,800,000. 

8. In the TAA Managed Account Agreement dated September 26, 2008, 

Complainants indicated that $2oo,ooo, to be notionalized to $400,ooo, was to be 

traded in TAA's "Auto Trade Program," and that $4,6oo,ooo, to be notionalized to 

$g,2oo,ooo, was to be traded in TAA's "Auto Trade with Options Program." 

g. At the same time that Complainants more than doubled down, in September 

and October 2008, the world-wide asset bubble was bursting: the U.S. bailed out 

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, Lehman Brothers headed into bankruptcy, the Fed 

rescued AIG, world markets plunged and were roiled with historic volatility, and the 

financial crises spread world-wide. By substantially increasing the funds at risk and 

increasing their leverage by nationalizing the amounts to be traded, Complainants 

5 
approved a high-risk, high-reward trading approach. The lion's share of Complainants' 

out-of-pocket losses would occur between October 13 and 15,2008. 

Trading System 

10. At all relevant times, Dorman maintained an electronic trading platform (the 

"ET platform"). Trades entered into the ET platform were transmitted electronically for 

execution directly at the exchange. 

11. Dorman granted TAA access to enter trading instructions through the ET 

platform for accounts on which TAA was acting as registered CTA. Before granting 

TAA access to enter trading instructions through the ET platform, Dorman determined 

that TAA was a registered CTA. 

Pursuant to TAA's disclosures, transactions in the Complainants' account were 

entered as part of a block account controlled by TAA (the "Block"). Thus, trades made in 

the Block represented trades for Complainants' account as well as other accountholders' unrelated accounts. Trades made in the Block were allocated daily to TAA 

customers' accounts, including that of Complainants. 

Dorman did not authorize anyone other than TAA to enter Block trades -- or any 

other trades affecting the Complainants' account -- into the ET platform for TAA 

customers. 

12. All Block trades which affected the Complainants' account were entered into 

the ET platform remotely through the access granted by Dorman to TAA. 

6 
Algorithm trading system and allocation of trades 

13. Doolittle had developed a system which created futures trading instructions 

based upon a computerized algorithm (the "algorithm system"). The algorithm system 

generated trading signals which TAA generally followed when trading futures in the 

Block, which included those futures trades in Complainants' account with Dorman. 

14. Dorman states that it does not know: one, whether trades in addition to 

those based upon the Algorithm System were also entered manually into the Block by 

TAA; two, which individual employees were authorized by TAA to enter or which 

individual employees actually did enter any manual Block trades; or three, who at TAA 

gave the direction to enter any manual trades. 

15. At the end of each trading day, TAA communicated to Dorman the allocation 

for Block trades among the various client accounts by emailing the information to 

Dorman's email address set up for that purpose. Upon receipt of the information, 

Dorman would enter the allocation information from the Block trade among the 

Dorman customer accounts, including the Complainants' Account. 

16. After allocations from TAA were entered into the Dorman system, Dorman 

would generate an account statement for Complainants' account, which would be 

emailed back to TA Advisors and to Complainants. Complainants received the daily 

statements from Dorman. 

Massive Trading Losses 

17. At the close on October 2, 2008, Complainants' account was down about 

$460,000 from its balance on September 26, 2008. By October 7, the account was 

7 
down over$ 1 million. Then, on October 10, the account recovered all but $360,000 of 

those losses. This partial recovery would prove to be temporary. 

18. At the market close on Monday, October 13, 2008, the net liquidating balance 

for the Complainants' account was $3,539,740, representing a $1,074,382loss from the 

previous day, and resulting in a margin deficit of $1,359,546, and a margin call from 

Dorman. 

19. The daily account statement sent to the Complainants on Monday, October 

13, 2008 correctly reported the trading and balance of the Complainants' account. 

20. At the market close on Tuesday October 14, 2008, Complainants' net 

liquidating balance was $2,453,105, representing a $1,o86,635loss from the previous 

day's statement. At the close that day, Doolittle emailed to Dorman the allocations for 

Block trades made that day, including the allocation of trades for the Complainants 

Account. 

21. A clerical error at Dorman was made during the entry of the October 14, 2008 

allocation of the Block trade. As a result of the clerical error, certain transactions in the 

Complainants' account were not reflected in the statement dated October 14, 2008. 

Within hours, the clerical error was identified and Complainants were informed 

by email that a correction would be reflected on a statement the next day. 

22. The statement dated October 15, 2008 reflected the missing allocations as 

trades made "as of October 14, 2008." The October 15,2008 statement for 

Complainants' account accurately stated the net liquidating balance $941,780, 

representing a $1,511,325loss from the prior day's statement. 

8 
23. On October 20, 2008, all positions in Complainants' account were liquidated. 

November 25, 2008 Denial of John Logan's Registration Application 

24. According to Complainants, John Logan was their principal contact at TAA. 

25. On or about June 25, 2008, TAA filed an application for Logan to become 

registered as an associated person of TAA, which was subsequently withdrawn on or 

about September 23, 2008. On or about October 28, 2008, eight days after all 

positions in Complainants' account had been liquidated, TAA re-filed an application for 

Logan to become registered as an associated person of TAA. 

26. On November 25, 2008, more than a month after all positions in 

Complainants' account had been liquidated, the National Futures Association issued a 

Notice of Intent to Deny Logan's application. In its notice, the NFA cited two criminal 

convictions of Logan in 1990 and 1996 respectively. 

27. Before November 25, 2008, Dorman did not know whether or not Logan was 

registered, and did not know about Logan's 1990 and 1996 convictions. Dorman first 

learned of Logan's registration status after November 25, 2008 when Marc Nagel of 

Dorman read the NFA's notice of intent to deny on the NFA website. 

NFA Arbitration Claim and CFI'C Reparations Complaint 

28. On October 6, 2010, Complainants filed a notice of intent to arbitrate a 

claim against Dorman. On November 9, 2010, Complainants electronically filed an 

arbitration statement of claim before the NFA ("NFA Statement of Claim"). Their NF A 

Statement of Claim asserted claims relating to the trading losses suffered in the 

9 
Complainants' Dorman account in mid-October 2008, and admitted that the 

Complainants first knew their dispute against Dorman existed on October 13, 2008, and 

that they were aware of their losses and closed their accounts on October 22, 2008. 

29. On September 1, 2011, the NFA arbitration panel granted Dorman's motion 

to dismiss Complainants' arbitration claims against Dorman, based on the one-year 

contractual limitations period in the Dorman customer contract. That order gave 

Complainants 30 days to file a motion to amend their statement of claim. Complainants 

did not amend the NF A Statement of Claim against Dorman in the arbitration. Rather, 

on September 30, 2011, Complainants sent a letter to the NFA asking the NF A panel to 

voluntarily dismiss the arbitration without prejudice. By order dated October 18, 2011, 

but not served until November 1, 2011, the NF A panel dismissed Complainants' claims 

against Dorman "with prejudice" based on the one-year contractual limitations period in 

the Dorman customer contract. The dismissal was silent on Complainants' request for 

dismissal without prejudice. Complainants did not ask NFA to clarify whether the 

dismissal was intended to be with prejudice only to their right to bring an NF A 

arbitration claim. 

go. On October 4, 2011, soon after asking the NF A to dismiss their arbitration 

claim against Dorman without prejudice and almost three years after all positions in 

their Dorman account had been liquidated, Complainants filed their reparations 

complaint. 

10 
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) -J 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 limitationsrelated issues. See Cheney v. Greco, Comm. Fut. L. Rep.~ 30,761, at 61,594 (CFTC 

2008), and Stoffel v. Interstate/Johnson-Lane Corp., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. -J 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)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act begins to run,1 when a complainant 

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

diligence, should have discovered the wrongful activity. McGough, supra. A 

determination of when wrongful activity should have been discovered is based on the 

particular 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 parties subsequent 

to the wrongful activity. I d. The determination of when a cause of action accrues turns 

1 Section 14(a)(l) of the 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]." 

11 
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., Edwards v. Balfour Maclaine 

Futures, Inc., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ~ 26,108 at 41,665 (CFfC 1994); Cook v. Monex 

International, Ltd., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ~ 22,532 (CFfC 1985), reconsideration denied 

Comm. Fut. L. Rep.~ 23,078 (CFfC 1986); Martin v. Shearson Lehman/American 

Express, Inc., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ~23,354 (CFfC 1986); and Marracinni v. ContiCommodity Services, Inc., Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ~23,793 (CFfC 1986). 

Here, on October 13, 2008, Complainants' had lost over a million dollars, and by 

October 20, 2008, all positions in Complainants' account had been liquidated at a 

massive loss. Since this substantial financial loss went directly to the heart of 

Complainants' allegation that Logan had falsely guaranteed to hedge their account 

against large losses and otherwise deviated from the approved trading strategy, it is 

reasonable to conclude that Complainants' cause of action for any violations of the 

Commodity Exchange Act in connection with the trading and handling of their account 

had accrued by October 20, 2008. Thus, the date that Complainants filed their 

reparations complaint, October 4, 2011, is well past the two-year deadline, and the 

complaint is time-barred, unless Complainants can show that the statute of limitations 

should be tolled for the one year and 26 day (October 6, 2010, to November 1, 2011) 

pendency of their NFA arbitration claim against Dorman. 

Complainants argue that the NFA dismissal was wrongly decided, principally 

because it violated the NFA Code which provides: one, that an arbitration claim is 

12 
timely if received by the NF A within two years from the date the claimant knew, or 

should have known, of the act that is the subject of the dispute, and two, that the NF A 

Code shall supersede any provision in an agreement that contradicts or limits the Code. 

Complainants also point out the controlling nature of the NF A Code is consistent with 

the practice followed by FINRA, whose predecessors NASD and NYSE in 1995 had 

warned members not to include or seek to enforce provisions in customer agreements 

that shorten the applicable statute of limitation. Complainants further argue that the 

NFA dismissal is not res judicata and thus not binding because it reflected a 

· determination that the claim against Dorman was not a proper subject for NFA 

arbitration. Consequently, Complainants argue, the statute of limitations should be 

tolled because their claim was mistakenly filed in an improper venue. 

Complainants have raised a compelling argument that NFA's dismissal was 

wrongly decided. Although NF A arbitrators are not strictly bound by CFTC precedent, 

such as the Commission's McGough decision which voided contractual one-year 

limitations periods in reparations, the information that NF A provided prospective 

arbitration claimants in 2010 suggested that any one-year limitations period would not 

be enforced by an arbitration panel. 

Conversely, the fact that Complainants never sought clarification or 

reconsideration of the NFA award, which simply dismissed their claim against Dorman 

"with prejudice," undermined their res judicata argument.- Moreover, I found more 

convincing Dorman's arguments that tolling does not apply here because when 

Complainants submitted to NFA arbitration they expressly relinquished their right to 

13 
pursue a claim in CFfC reparations and agreed to be bound by any award by the NF A 

arbitration panel, that the NF A panel properly heard the claim against Dorman, and 

that the NFA panel did not dismiss the claim against Dorman on jurisdictional grounds. 

ORDER 

The complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, and accordingly is 

dismissed. 

Dated May 9, 2014. 

/)~A 1/»?J~ 

P~li;zcGuire, Judgment Officer 

14