1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING ) 

COMMISSION, ) 

 ) Case No. 4:22-cv-00365 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

MATTHEW CLARK, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES, 

RESTITUTION, DISGORGEMENT, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), by and through its 

undersigned attorneys, alleges as follows: 

I. SUMMARY

1. First, from at least August 6, 2015 to December 28, 2018, Matthew Clark

(“Clark”) engaged in a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate material, nonpublic information 

from his employer, where Clark initiated a tipping chain that enabled others to trade on the basis 

of this material, nonpublic information, and to enter into fictitious trades at non-bona fide prices. 

2. The fraudulent scheme generally operated in the following manner. Beginning no 

later than August 6, 2015, Clark, an energy trader working for an energy company (“Energy 

Company”) disclosed Energy Company’s block trade order information in natural gas futures 

contracts listed on the New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”), a Division of CME Group, 

Inc. (“CME”), including the prices and quantities at which Energy Company would trade. Clark

disclosed this information to Mathew Webb (“Webb”), the President of, and also a broker with, 

Classic Energy LLC (“Classic”), with the intention that Webb would subsequently disclose it to 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 36
2 

Peter Miller (“Miller”), an energy trader who was trading through Omerta Capital LLC 

(“Omerta”), a proprietary trading company Miller owned. Miller, through Omerta, then entered

into fictitious, non-arm’s length trades with Energy Company—on the basis of Energy 

Company’s material, nonpublic information as disclosed by Clark to Webb, and then Webb to 

Miller—at advantageous prices that enabled Miller and Omerta to generate a profit. Miller then

shared these profits with Webb and Clark. 

3. In approximately April 2017, Clark was promoted to an executive position within 

Energy Company, and according to company policy was no longer permitted to place trades on 

behalf of Energy Company. At this point, Clark then directed another Energy Company trader 

under his supervision (“Company Trader B”) to disclose similar block trade order information to 

Classic and Webb (and then later an additional broker at Classic (“Broker A”)), which Webb and 

Broker A then disclosed to Miller. Miller then similarly traded through Omerta on the basis of 

this material, nonpublic information, and continued to share a portion of the profit from these 

trades with the various individuals involved in the fraudulent scheme. 

4. Second, Clark also devised and engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which he 

extracted a portion of the brokerage commissions Energy Company paid to Classic as a kickback 

for sending Energy Company’s business to Classic and Webb. From 2009 through 2019, Clark 

and Webb had an arrangement whereby Webb would pay Clark a percentage of the brokerage 

commissions paid by Energy Company to Classic. In turn, Clark would direct Energy 

Company’s natural gas block trading business to Classic and instruct other Energy Company 

traders to do the same. Clark concealed his receipt of kickback payments in several ways. From 

2009 through 2012, Clark demanded that Webb hire his fiancée and later wife as a “marketer” 

and pay her a percentage of the commissions Classic earned from trades brokered for Clark on 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 36
3 

behalf of Energy Company. Beginning in 2012, Classic paid kickbacks to Clark through Green 

Mountain Energy, an entity first owned by Clark’s wife, and later his half-sister, that was 

controlled and used by Clark to receive these payments. Later, in 2015, Clark asked Webb to 

hire his longtime friend, Broker A, to broker trades placed by Company Trader B. Broker A then 

paid Clark kickbacks out of his paycheck from Classic, which included a share of the 

commissions from trades Broker A brokered for Company Trader B and those Webb brokered 

for Clark. 

5. To avoid detection and further perpetuate the fraudulent schemes described 

above, when interviewed by the CFTC about these and related activities Clark made false or 

misleading statements of material facts to the CFTC, and omitted material facts necessary to 

make statements of material fact not misleading in any material respect, which he knew or 

reasonably should have known were false or misleading, when he was not forthcoming about his 

knowledge of and participation in the schemes or the individuals and entities involved therein. 

6. By this conduct and further conduct described herein, Clark has engaged, is

engaging, or is about to engage in acts and practices that violate Sections 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C), 

4c(a), 6(c)(1) and (2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A), (C), 

6c(a), 9(1), (2), and Commission Regulation (“Regulation”) 180.1(a)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.1(a)(1), (3) (2021). 

7. Accordingly, the CFTC brings this action under Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1, to enjoin Clark’s unlawful acts and practices and to compel Clark’s compliance with the 

Act and Regulations. The CFTC also seeks civil monetary penalties, disgorgement of the profits 

Clark obtained through the fraudulent scheme, restitution, trading and registration prohibitions, 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 36
4 

and any other such equitable and ancillary relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate 

under the circumstances.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (codifying 

federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (providing that district courts have original 

jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by the United States or by any agency expressly 

authorized to sue by Act of Congress). 

9. Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 authorizes the CFTC to seek injunctive 

and other relief against any person whenever it shall appear to the CFTC that such person has 

engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a violation of any 

provision of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder. 

10. Venue lies properly in this Court pursuant to Section 6c(e) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(c), because Clark resides in this District, transacted business in this District, and certain 

transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business in violation of the Act and the Regulations 

occurred, are occurring, or about to occur in this District, among other places. 

III. THE PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission is an independent federal 

regulatory agency charged by Congress with the administration and enforcement of the Act and 

the Regulations promulgated thereunder. One of its core responsibilities is to protect the public 

interest by ensuring the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Act and Regulations 

and protecting market participants from fraudulent practices. Section 3(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 36
5 

§ 5(b). The CFTC maintains its principal office at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW,

Washington, D.C. 20581. 

12. Defendant Matthew Clark is a resident of Houston, Texas. From August 16, 

2015 until July 25, 2019, Clark was employed by Energy Company in its office in The 

Woodlands, Texas. Until April 2017, Clark actively traded on behalf of Energy Company while 

holding a number of supervisory trading positions at Energy Company. In April 2017, Clark was 

promoted to an executive position within Energy Company. Clark has never been registered 

with the CFTC.

IV. OTHER RELEVANT INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES

13. Energy Company is a business that engages in energy marketing and trading in 

North America. Energy Company employs traders who trade natural gas products for the benefit 

of Energy Company’s business, including, formerly, Clark and Company Trader B. Energy 

Company frequently used Classic to broker block trades in natural gas futures contracts.

14. Peter Miller is an individual who resides primarily in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 

Miller trades natural gas futures contracts through Omerta. Miller is the President, Chairman, 

and an Authorized Member of Omerta. On December 10, 2021, the CFTC sued Miller in this 

court for violations of the Act and Regulations in connection with the scheme to misappropriate 

Energy Company’s material nonpublic information described in this Complaint. Miller has 

never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

15. Omerta Capital LLC is a Puerto Rico limited liability company, with its 

principal place of business in Dorado, Puerto Rico. Omerta is a proprietary trading company that 

owns the futures trading accounts that Miller used to trade natural gas futures contracts and other 

products. Omerta has never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 36
6 

16. Company Trader B is a resident of Spring, Texas. Company Trader B traded 

natural gas futures products on behalf of Energy Company. Prior to July 25, 2019, Company 

Trader B was supervised by Clark. Except for a three-month period from January 1, 2014 to 

March 31, 2014 not relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Company Trader B has not 

otherwise been registered with the CFTC.

17. Classic Energy LLC was a registered introducing broker located in Houston, 

Texas. Among other services, Classic was a voice broker that brokered block trades for 

customers in energy futures contracts and other products listed on designated contract markets 

such as NYMEX. The CFTC issued two separate orders against Classic asserting violations of 

the Act and Regulations on September 30, 2019, and June 14, 2021. Classic withdrew its 

registration with the CFTC in 2019, and was permanently barred from registering with the CFTC 

on June 14, 2021.

18. Mathew D. Webb was the founder, President, sole member, and a registered 

associated person of Classic. Webb brokered block trades for Classic customers in natural gas 

futures contracts listed on NYMEX. Webb was also the sole member of MDW Capital, LLC 

(“MDW”), a limited liability company that owned the trading account through which Webb 

conducted proprietary trading. The CFTC issued orders against Webb asserting violations of the 

Act and Regulations involving Classic and MDW on September 30, 2019, and involving Classic 

on June 14, 2021. Webb’s registration with the CFTC was temporarily suspended in 2019, and 

then on June 14, 2021, Webb was permanently barred from registering with the CFTC. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 36
7 

V. FACTS

A. The Fundamentals of the Natural Gas Futures Market Used in the Fraudulent 

Scheme. 

19. Natural gas is an energy commodity traded by buyers and sellers.

20. One way to trade natural gas it to buy or sell a futures contract. A futures contract 

is an agreement to buy or sell a commodity at a fixed quantity and price for delivery or cash

settlement at a specific date and time in the future. Futures contracts are used to assume or shift 

price risk and may be satisfied by cash settlement, delivery, or offset. Futures contracts are 

commonly used to hedge risks or to speculate on the price of financial instruments of physical 

commodities.

21. Futures contracts are traded on exchanges—designated contract markets regulated 

by the CFTC—including NYMEX, a subsidiary of CME. NYMEX lists different products for 

trading, including natural gas futures contracts, and both determines and enforces rules and 

procedures for trading on its exchange.

22. A trader can place an order to either buy (a “bid”) or to sell (an “offer”) a certain 

quantity of a specific futures contract. An order is “filled” when a buyer’s bid price and a 

seller’s offer price match for a particular futures contract. A trader who purchases a futures 

contract establishes a “long” position, and a trader who sells a futures contract establishes a 

“short” position. 

23. Offsetting trades are opposite transactions for an equal number of contracts of the 

same delivery month that liquidate a purchase or sale of a futures contract and close the long or 

short position (i.e., 100 “long” futures contracts are offset by 100 of the same “short” futures 

contracts). The net gain or loss on the trade is equal to the difference between the price of the 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 36
8 

futures contracts when the position was opened and the price of the futures contracts when the 

position was closed, or offset. 

24. Natural gas trades at different prices at different physical delivery points 

throughout the United States. “Henry Hub”—the delivery location near Louisiana’s Gulf Coast 

that connects several intrastate and interstate pipelines—is used as the standard pricing reference 

for many natural gas futures contracts. NYMEX lists multiple futures contracts that are priced 

based on the price of natural gas at the Henry Hub delivery point during specified time periods, 

known as delivery months. 

25. One such contract is the Natural Gas (Henry Hub) Last-Day Financial Futures 

contract (“HH Contract”). The HH Contract is based on the price of natural gas at the Henry 

Hub delivery point. The HH Contract is financially-settled, meaning that at the expiration of the 

contract, a person with an open position receives or pays the difference between the price at 

which they opened the position and the final settlement price. 

26. Traders can buy or sell the HH Contract either for a single delivery month or for a 

“calendar strip” of multiple consecutive delivery months. 

27. With limited exceptions, futures contracts are required to be traded openly and 

competitively. All futures contracts listed and traded on NYMEX, including natural gas futures 

contracts, are traded through Globex, the electronic trading platform operated by CME to 

facilitate electronic trading on CME exchanges. Trading through the Globex platform is

colloquially referred to as trading on the “screen” by market participants 

28. One exception is block trades, which are permissible, privately-negotiated 

transactions that meet certain minimum contract number thresholds set by the exchanges. As 

reflected by the minimum contract size requirements, block trades are significantly larger in 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 36
9 

number of contracts and are often used by institutional investors. While block trades are not 

negotiated on the open market, under exchange rules they are required to be executed at fair and 

reasonable prices, taking into account, among other factors, the circumstances and prices of the 

market. All block trades are also required to be reported to NYMEX. Once reported, NYMEX 

posts publicly the price and quantity at which the block trade was executed, among other data. 

B. Clark Often Traded Natural Gas Futures Contracts Via Block Trades. 

29. Clark was a natural gas trader who held a number of supervisory trading positions 

at Energy Company. In April 2017, Clark was promoted to an executive position within Energy 

Company and stopped actively trading. Clark served in that capacity until his employment was 

terminated on July 25, 2019. 

30. Before being promoted, Clark traded natural gas futures contracts on behalf of 

Energy Company on NYMEX. Clark traded these natural gas futures contracts either on the 

screen through Globex, CME’s electronic trading platform, or as block trades. 

31. When trading natural gas futures contracts as block trades on behalf of Energy 

Company, Clark often used voice brokers to locate counterparties and facilitate execution of the 

block trades. 

32. Classic was a voice brokerage firm that facilitated block trades between its 

customers in, among other things, natural gas futures contracts. Classic’s brokers facilitated 

block trades by soliciting and receiving block trade orders from Classic’s customers. Classic 

brokers would then locate potential counterparties for the block trades either from among 

Classic’s other customers, or from the customers of another voice broker. Once Classic’s 

brokers located a counterparty, and provided the counterparty’s bid or offer for the block trade, 

the block trade was executed when the customer expressed its acceptance of the bid or offer. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 36
10 

Brokers then submitted the details of the executed block trade to the exchange clearinghouse for 

clearing. Brokers earn revenue on these trades by charging their customers a commission for 

facilitating, executing, and clearing the block trades. 

C. Clark Participated in a Scheme To Misappropriate Energy Company’s Material, 

Nonpublic Information and Receive a Share of the Profits Generated by Trading on 

the Basis of this Information. 

33. In August 2015, while attending the wedding of Company Trader B, Clark

discussed the fraudulent scheme with Miller and Webb. As part of this scheme, Clark would 

send to Webb material, nonpublic information regarding the block trade orders in the HH 

Contract that Energy Company intended to execute, in a manner that appeared similar to how 

Clark typically communicated with voice brokers. Webb, in turn, understood he was to share 

this block trade order information with Miller only. 

34. As a trader and company executive, Clark knew and understood that Energy 

Company considered its block trade order information to be highly confidential. Clark further 

knew that the information he disclosed to Webb was nonpublic information belonging to Energy 

Company, and that Webb would further disclose the information to Miller for the purpose of 

arranging a fictitious block trade in furtherance of the scheme. 

35. Miller then knowingly or recklessly traded on the basis of this material, nonpublic 

information of Energy Company as disclosed by Clark. By trading on the basis of Energy 

Company’s information, Miller was able to select a price for the block trade in the HH Contract 

that enabled Omerta to generate trading profits on Miller’s offsetting HH Contract trade. As part 

of the scheme, Miller shared these trading profits with both Clark and Webb. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 36
11 

1. Clark Had a Duty To Keep Confidential Energy Company’s Block Trade 

Order Information. 

36. Participants in the block trade market consider their block trade orders and any 

other confidential information they provide to voice brokers regarding their trading intentions to 

be material, nonpublic information. Through his employment with Energy Company, Clark

developed and had access to Energy Company’s information regarding what block trade orders it 

would place and the prices and quantities at which Energy Company was willing to execute a 

block trade. Energy Company considered this information to be material, nonpublic information. 

Under Energy Company’s employee agreements, policies, and procedures, all information of a 

confidential, proprietary, or secret nature that is related in any way to the business of Energy 

Company was considered confidential, nonpublic information. 

37. As an employee of Energy Company, Clark had a duty to keep this block trade 

order information confidential and disclose it to the voice brokers used by Energy Company for 

the purpose of locating potential block trade counterparties and executing block trades for the 

benefit of Energy Company. 

38. Under the employment agreements, policies, and procedures that governed 

Clark’s employment with Energy Company, Clark agreed and had a duty to keep confidential 

nonpublic information belonging to Energy Company and not to disclose it to unauthorized 

persons or use it for any purpose other than performing his duties as an employee of Energy 

Company. Energy Company’s employee policies specifically required employees to use 

confidential business information solely for the benefit of Energy Company. Energy Company’s 

employee policies further obligated all employees not to disclose such information for the 

purpose of making a personal profit. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 36
12 

2. Clark Breached His Duty to Energy Company by Disclosing Its Block Trade

Order Information to Webb, Who in turn Disclosed This Information to 

Miller. 

39. Clark typically traded the HH Contract either for a single delivery month, as a 

calendar strip of multiple delivery months, or as a calendar spread between two delivery months. 

Clark, Miller, and Webb agreed that Clark would signal to Webb that he wanted to trade in 

furtherance of the fraudulent scheme by giving Webb a block trade request for a single delivery 

month, as opposed to a calendar strip or calendar spread. When Clark disclosed to Webb a block 

trade order for the HH Contract for a single delivery month, Webb would disclose this block 

trade order information to Miller only, instead of soliciting bids and/or offers from among 

multiple Classic customers, as was his typical practice and Energy Company’s expectation. 

40. Clark knew and understood that when he disclosed a single-month HH Contract 

order to Webb that Webb would provide this information to Miller only. Clark further knew and 

understood that Miller would trade on the basis of this information in the manner described 

below. Clark disclosed this information knowing and understanding that he would share in the 

profits Omerta generated from trading on the basis of this information. 

41. Similarly, Webb knew and understood that when Clark disclosed a single-month 

HH Contract order to him, Clark intended for Webb to share the order with Miller only. As a 

voice broker, Webb knew and understood that traders consider their block trade order 

information to be highly confidential. Webb further knew and understood that traders disclose 

this block trade order information to voice brokers for the limited purpose of locating potential 

counterparties to a block trade and expect voice brokers will not disclose the identity of the 

trader or firm placing the order. Webb further knew and understood that when Clark shared 

Energy Company’s order information with him, Clark was not using Classic to locate 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 36
13 

counterparties and execute block trades in the ordinary course of his business for Energy 

Company, but rather in furtherance of the scheme. 

42. Webb disclosed this information to Miller knowing and understanding that Webb 

would also share in the profits Omerta generated from trading on the basis of this information. 

Webb disclosed this information to Miller also knowing and understanding that he and Classic 

would benefit from the increased brokerage activity and commission revenue generated by 

Clark’s and Miller’s trading in furtherance of the scheme.

43. In March of 2017, Clark received a promotion within Energy Company and no 

longer actively traded on its behalf. To continue the scheme, Clark directed Company Trader B, 

who had worked as a trader underneath Clark, to disclose Energy Company’s block trade order 

information to Webb and Broker A, another Classic broker, in the same manner as Clark had 

been doing. Accordingly, Clark directed Company Trader B to disclose this information with the 

understanding that Webb and Broker A would further disclose this information to Miller so that 

Miller could trade on the basis of this information. Clark knew and understood that he would 

continue to receive from Miller a share of the profits Omerta generated by trading on the basis of 

this information disclosed by Company Trader B. 

44. Similarly, Webb and Broker A knew and understood that they were to disclose the 

block trade order information they received from Company Trader B to Miller so that Miller 

could continue to trade in furtherance of the scheme. Webb and Broker A disclosed this 

information knowing and understanding that they and Classic would benefit from the increased 

brokerage activity and commission revenue generated by Company Trader B’s and Miller’s 

trading in furtherance of the scheme. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 36
14 

3. Clark Profited from Miller’s Trading on the Basis of Energy Company’s 

Misappropriated Information. 

 

45. Miller traded on the basis of Energy Company’s HH Contract block trade order 

information in one of three patterns: (1) to close a position already open against another market 

participant with Energy Company’s block trade, (2) to open a position with Energy Company’s 

block trade and then close it against another market participant, or (3) to both open and close a 

position with Energy Company’s block trades. 

46. By trading on the basis of Energy Company’s confidential block trade order 

information provided by Clark (or Company Trader B at the direction of Clark) to Webb or 

Broker A, and then to Miller, Miller was able to obtain a price for the HH Contract that he 

needed to make his trade profitable, regardless of whether that price was available in the market 

for the HH Contract. 

47. In the first pattern, Miller opened a position in the HH Contract with other market 

participants and closed the HH Contract position against Energy Company using Energy 

Company’s material, nonpublic information as disclosed by Clark or Company Trader B. In this 

pattern, at a time when Miller had an open HH Contract position, Clark or Company Trader B 

contacted Webb or Broker A via instant message and described the delivery month and quantity 

of the HH Contract Energy Company was willing to trade, understanding that Webb or Broker A 

would disclose this information only to Miller and not solicit prices from among Classic’s 

brokerage customers. Webb or Broker A then contacted Miller, who gave a price for the HH 

Contract that would close his open HH Contract at a favorable price. Clark or Company Trader 

B typically accepted whatever price Webb or Broker A communicated on behalf of Miller. In 

most of the instances when Miller engaged in this pattern of trading and traded on the basis of 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 36
15 

Energy Company’s block trade order information, he generated a trading profit for Omerta, and 

Clark received a share of these proceeds. 

48. Clark’s and Miller’s trading on February 23, 2017 illustrates the first pattern. On 

this day, Miller had an existing open position in the May 2017 HH Contract. Specifically, Miller

was long (bought) 100 lots in the May 2017 HH Contract. On February 23, 2017, Miller closed 

this open position as follows: 

a. At 9:59:12 AM, Clark contacted Webb via IM and told Webb he needed to 

buy 100 lots of the May 2017 HH Contract. 

b. At 9:59:33 AM, Webb asked Miller to provide an offer for 100 lots of the 

May 2017 HH Contract. 

c. At 10:03:01 AM, Miller provided Webb with a price of 2.853 for the 

block trade. 

d. At 10:03:25 AM, Webb confirmed to Clark that Miller sold 100 lots of the 

May 2017 HH Contract via a block trade with Energy Company, closing 

his open 100-lot long position in the May 2017 HH Contract. Webb 

reported this trade as having been executed at 10:04:44 AM. 

e. By trading on the basis of Energy Company’s block trade order 

information from Clark, then disclosed to Miller by Webb, Omerta earned 

trading profits amounting to $3,370. 

49. In the second pattern, Clark or Company Trader B disclosed Energy Company’s 

block trade order information to Webb or Broker A, and then Miller opened positions in the HH 

Contract with block trades opposite Energy Company—at advantageous prices for Omerta—

after Webb or Broker A disclosed to Miller the block trade order information they received from 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 36
16 

Clark or Company Trader B in the manner described above. Miller then closed these positions 

against other market participants. By trading in this manner, Miller was able to trade on the 

basis of Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information as disclosed by Clark or Company 

Trader B to open positions at better prices than were otherwise available in the market, and was 

later able to offset these positions at a profit. 

50. Clark’s and Miller’s trading on January 27, 2017 illustrates the second pattern. 

Miller opened a position for 100 lots in the February 2017 HH Contract by selling the HH 

Contracts via a block trade to Clark. Almost immediately after opening this position, Miller 

bought 100 lots of the February 2017 HH Contract, all on Globex, offsetting this open position: 

a. At 8:13:35 AM, Clark contacted Webb via IM and told Webb he needed to 

buy 100 lots of the February 2017 HH Contract.

b. At 8:14:36 AM, Webb asked Miller to provide an offer for 100 lots of the 

February 2017 HH Contract.

c. At 8:14:48 AM, Miller provided Webb with a price of 3.282 for the block 

trade.

d. At 8:15:39 AM, Webb confirmed to Clark that Miller sold 100 lots of the 

February 2017 HH Contract via a block trade with Company A, opening a 

100-lot short position in the February 2017 HH Contract. Webb reported 

this trade as having been executed at 8:15:53 AM. 

e. Between 8:16:33 AM and 8:23:37 AM, Miller bought 100 lots of the 

February 2017 HH Contract on Globex. These Globex trades offset the 

open 100-lot HH Contract position Miller had just opened on the basis of 

the block trade order information disclosed by Clark to Webb. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 36
17 

f. By trading on the basis of Energy Company’s block trade order 

information from Clark, then disclosed to Miller by Webb, Omerta earned 

trading profits amounting to $3,320. 

51. In the third pattern, Clark or Company Trader B disclosed Energy Company’s 

block trade order information to Webb or Broker A, and then Webb or Broker A disclosed the 

information to Miller. Miller then traded on the basis of this information, both opening and 

closing positions in the HH Contract with block trades opposite Energy Company—at 

advantageous prices for Omerta. 

52. Clark’s and Miller’s trading on March 2, 2017 illustrates this third pattern. On 

this day, Miller sold the May 2017 HH Contract via a block trade with Clark. A little over an 

hour later, Miller bought the May 2017 HH Contract via a block trade with Clark, offsetting his 

open position. 

a. At 8:35:13 AM, Clark contacted Webb via IM and told Webb he needed to 

buy 125 lots of the May 2017 HH Contract. 

b. At 8:37:05 AM, Webb asked Miller to provide an offer for 125 lots of the 

May 2017 HH Contract. 

c. At 8:37:18 AM, Miller provided Webb with a price of 2.891 for the block 

trade. 

d. At 8:38:08 AM, Webb confirmed to Clark that Miller sold 125 lots of the 

May 2017 HH Contract via a block trade with Energy Company, opening 

a 125-lot short position in the February 2017 HH Contract. Webb 

reported this block trade as having been executed at 8:38:13 AM. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 17 of 36
18 

e. A little over one hour later, at 9:42:03 AM, Clark contacted Webb via IM 

and told Webb he now needed to buy 125 lots of the May 2017 HH 

Contract. 

f. At 9:42:57 AM, Webb asked Miller to provide a bid for 125 lots of the 

May 2017 HH Contract. 

g. At 9:44:30 AM, Miller provided Webb with a price of 2.87 for the block 

trade. 

h. At 9:45:13 AM, Webb confirmed to Clark that Miller purchased 125 lots 

of the May 2017 HH Contract via a block trade with Energy Company, 

closing his 125-lot short position in the May 2017 HH Contract. Webb 

reported this block trade as having been executed at 9:45:25 AM. 

i. By trading on the basis of Energy Company’s block trade order 

information from Clark, then disclosed to Miller by Webb, Omerta earned 

trading profits amounting to $8,040. 

53. From at least August 6, 2015 to December 28, 2018, Clark or Company Trader B 

disclosed block trade order information belonging to Energy Company for the purpose of 

allowing Miller to engage in 100 events where he opened and closed positions in the HH 

Contract on the basis of this block trade order information. These events involved a total of 103 

block trades executed by Clark and 45 block trades executed by Company Trader B at the 

direction of Clark. Of these 100 events, 85 were profitable for Miller, resulting in a win rate of 

85 percent. In total, Miller generated net trading profits of $1,516,207 on the 100 events when 

he traded on the basis of Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information. At different times 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 18 of 36
19 

between August 2015 and December 2018, Clark received from Miller either one-half or onethird of the trading profits Miller generated from this fraudulent scheme. 

54. Clark received his share of the profits in Omerta’s trading account from these 100 

events in the form of cash. Miller typically delivered these cash payments to either Clark or 

Webb in person in or around Houston, Texas. 

4. Clark Executed Trades that Negated Market Risk and Caused the Reporting 

of Non-Bona Fide Prices. 

55. By entering into and executing non-arm’s length block trades in the manner 

described above, Clark provided Miller and Omerta with more advantageous prices and negated 

market risk in trades with Energy Company, effectively allowing Miller to select the price or 

prices he needed to make his trading strategy profitable. 

56. As a result of entering into non-arm’s length block trades on behalf of Energy 

Company that negated market risk, Clark caused prices to be recorded by NYMEX for those 

block trades that were not true and bona fide prices. 

D. Clark Engaged in a Scheme To Extract Kickbacks Out of the Brokerage 

Commissions That Energy Company Paid to Classic. 

57. Beginning in at least 2009 and continuing through August 2019, Clark engaged in 

a fraudulent scheme to extract as kickbacks a portion of the brokerage commissions that Energy 

Company paid to Classic for block trades brokered by Webb (and later other brokers at Classic). 

58. Knowing that he would receive a portion of the brokerage commissions that 

Energy Company paid to Classic, Clark—who was in a supervisory position as Energy 

Company’s Head of Northeast Trading and later Energy Company’s President—steered natural 

gas block trading business to Webb and other brokers at Classic, and instructed other Energy 

Company traders to do so as well. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 19 of 36
20 

59. This natural gas block trading business included those trades that were part of the 

fraudulent scheme to misappropriate Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information, but 

also included trades executed by Energy Company in the ordinary course of business and 

unrelated to that fraudulent scheme. 

60. Between 2009 and August 2019, Clark used a variety of methods to conceal his 

receipt of money from Classic.

61. At first, beginning in 2009, Clark received kickback payments through his thenfiancée (later, although no longer, his wife, but referred to hereinafter as “wife” for simplicity). 

At Clark’s direction, Webb hired Clark’s wife as an “Energy Marketer” at Classic. However, her 

employment with Classic was a sham. Clark’s wife never came into Classic’s offices, was never 

issued a computer or mobile device, and never performed any actual job responsibilities at 

Classic. Nevertheless, Clark’s wife was paid by Webb and Classic a percentage of Classic’s 

commissions for trades Clark and Energy Company traders at his direction executed using 

Classic. In 2012, after they married, and Clark’s wife took Clark’s last name, Clark ended his 

wife’s sham employment with Classic. Classic paid Clark’s wife approximately $302,030 in this 

manner between 2009 and 2012. Clark controlled the money his wife received from Classic. 

62. Beginning sometime in 2011, Clark set up a bank account in the name of Green 

Mountain Energy (“GME”), a d/b/a originally in the name of his wife. Clark set up GME to 

further conceal the kickback payments from Webb and Classic. Beginning in 2011, Classic 

made some of the kickback payments directly to GME. Clark controlled all of the money in the 

GME bank account. Clark had an ATM card for the GME bank account that he used to 

withdraw cash and make purchases. In addition, Clark’s wife pre-signed checks for the GME 

bank account and gave them to Clark for his use. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 20 of 36
21 

63. Sometime after Clark and his wife married in 2012, and his wife’s sham 

employment with Classic ended, Clark transferred the GME account to the name of his 

stepsister. After the GME account was transferred to Clark’s stepsister, Classic continued 

making kickback payments to the GME account. As with the payments to Clark’s wife, these 

kickback payments were based on a share of the brokerage commissions Energy Company paid 

to Classic by Energy Company. Clark continued to have control over the money in the GME 

account. Clark continued to use an ATM card for the GME account to withdraw funds. Clark’s 

stepsister pre-signed checks for the GME account which she gave to Clark for Clark’s use. In 

some instances, Clark gave his son pre-signed checks for the GME account for his son to use as 

he saw fit. Between 2011 and 2015, Classic paid approximately $1,320,934 to the GME

account. 

64. In 2015, as part of this fraudulent scheme, Clark asked Webb to hire Broker A, his 

longtime friend, as a Classic broker. At the time, Broker A had no experience as a voice broker. 

Webb made Broker A a Classic broker with the understanding that Broker A would broker block 

trades for Company Trader B and occasionally other traders at Energy Company. Like other 

Classic brokers, Broker A was paid a percentage of the brokerage commissions Classic earned 

from the trades he brokered. Broker A was also paid a percentage of the brokerage commissions 

Classic earned for trades Webb brokered for Clark. Broker A paid kickbacks to Clark out of the 

payments he received from Classic. 

65. Around the time Broker A became a broker at Classic, Clark directed Company 

Trader B to direct a larger share of his block trade business to Classic, and Broker A in 

particular. As a result, Classic and Broker A began earning more commissions from Energy 

Company’s trading. This increased the amount of kickbacks that Broker A paid to Clark. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 21 of 36
22 

66. Clark took other steps to increase the amount of kickbacks he was receiving from 

Broker A. For example, Clark directed Webb to increase the commission rate that Classic 

charged Energy Company. Clark also directed Company Trader B to increase the commission 

rate that Classic charged Energy Company for trades Broker A brokered for Company Trader B. 

As a result, Classic began earning more commission revenue from Energy Company’s block 

trades, which increased the amount of money Webb and Broker A received for commissions, and 

therefore increased the amount of money funneled back to Clark as commission kickbacks. 

67. Clark also directed Company Trader B to unwind a large trading position Energy 

Company had in natural gas futures. Clark specifically directed Company Trader B to execute 

the trades needed to unwind this position through Classic. Clark did so even though Company 

Trader B could have executed these trades himself on Globex, thus avoiding Energy Company 

having to pay brokerage commissions on these trades. Company Trader B entered into a give-up 

agreement with Classic and Broker A, giving Broker A authority to execute trades on Globex for 

Energy Company. Broker A earned commissions on these Globex-executed trades at rates 

similar to what he earned for brokering block trades. As a result, Clark received additional 

kickbacks from Broker A based on the commissions Broker A from executing these trades on 

Globex. 

68. Despite having no prior experience as a voice broker, as a result of this fraudulent 

scheme Broker A became the highest paid broker at Classic between 2016 and 2018, accounting 

for 45 percent of the total amount of commissions paid to Classic brokers in 2016 and 54 percent 

in 2017. In total, Broker A received $4,148,855.56 from Classic between 2015 and 2019. 

Broker A sent most of that money to Clark or to individuals or entities under Clark’s control. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 22 of 36
23 

69. Broker A funneled Clark’s share of the kickback payments to Clark in various 

ways, all designed to conceal the nature of the fraudulent scheme. At different points during the 

scheme, Broker A wrote checks or wired money: (1) to GME; (2) directly to Clark’s stepsister; 

or (3) directly to Clark’s wife. Beginning around November 2018 until approximately April or 

May 2019, Broker A and Clark’s stepsister sent packages of cash to Clark’s son. Clark’s son 

then met Clark in person and hand-delivered these packages of cash to Clark. Broker A also 

transferred his commission income to an account in the name a d/b/a he established in 

furtherance of the scheme, then made payments from this d/b/a to a company set up by Clark’s 

son. Clark’s son then either used the money himself or gave the money to Clark. 

70. No matter the form of payment or to whom it was sent, all accounts and entities

were controlled by Clark.

71. Clark directed the payments to these various individuals and entities for the 

purpose of concealing from Energy Company and others his receipt of money from Classic, 

Webb, and Broker A. 

72. Clark did not disclose to Energy Company that a portion of the commissions 

Energy Company paid to Classic for brokerage services were used to pay commission kickbacks 

to Clark. Energy Company’s employee policies required all employees who received a gift, 

including senior management, to submit an application requesting advance approval of any gift 

over $50. These policies also expressly prohibited the receipt of any gift over $1,000. Clark 

never submitted an application for approval of any gift at Energy Company in connection with 

his receipt of any of the kickback payments described above as required by Energy Company’s 

employee policies. Energy Company’s employee policies also obligated employees to act in the 

best interest of Energy Company and to avoid conflicts of interest. Receipt of kickbacks paid out 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 23 of 36
24 

of brokerage commissions in exchange for directing business to a particular broker violated 

Energy Company’s prohibition on conflicts of interest. 

E. Clark Made False and Misleading Statements and Omissions to the CFTC.

73. On February 28, 2019, the CFTC interviewed Clark during its investigation of 

Webb that led to the CFTC’s September 30, 2019 administrative order against Webb and Classic, 

In re Classic Energy LLC, CFTC No. 19-50, 2019 WL 4915492, at *3 (Sept. 30, 2019) (consent 

order) (“Classic I”). In Classic I, the CFTC found, among other things, that between April 30, 

2014 and September 3, 2015 Webb misappropriated the material, nonpublic information 

belonging to certain of Classic’s customers by taking the other side of customer block trades 

through MDW—a proprietary trading account wholly owned by Webb—in violation of duties he 

owed to his customers. Webb executed block trades opposite Classic’s customers at non-bona 

fide prices that would allow him to place an offsetting trade in MDW’s trading account and 

realize a nearly risk-free profit. Energy Company was one of the customers from which the 

CFTC found Webb had misappropriated material, public information. Clark executed the trades 

in question on behalf of Energy Company. 

74. Clark made several false and misleading statements to the CFTC’s Division of 

Enforcement in the February 28, 2019 interview, including: 

a. that Clark was not aware that any voice broker he used, including Classic, 

was taking the other side of his block trade orders; 

b. that Clark did not expect any voice broker he used, including Classic, 

would be acting as a trader and taking the other side of his block trade 

orders; 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 24 of 36
25 

c. that Clark would not pay a brokerage commission to any broker who was 

acting as a trader and taking the other side of his block trade orders;

d. that Webb never disclosed to Clark that Webb was trading in his own 

proprietary account at the same time he was brokering block trades for 

Clark; and

e. that Clark did not have any relationship with Broker A beyond his 

awareness that Broker A was one of the brokers at Classic. 

75. Clark’s statements to the CFTC were false. Clark was not an innocent victim of 

Webb’s misappropriation of Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information, but rather a 

participant in the fraudulent scheme who shared in the profits of Webb’s trading in the MDW

account. Similar to the fraudulent scheme alleged in paragraphs 33 to 56 above, Clark 

intentionally gave Webb block trade orders on behalf of Energy Company knowing that Webb 

would take the other side of these orders in the MDW account and split any trading profits with 

Clark. 

76. Clark continued to pay brokerage commissions for the trades that Webb took the 

other side of in the MDW account. Clark paid these commissions to help conceal his 

involvement and make the trades with MDW appear similar to those he executed in the ordinary 

of course of his business on behalf of Energy Company. And as alleged above, Clark received a 

portion of these commissions as a kickback. 

77. Clark did in fact have a longstanding relationship with Broker A. Clark was the 

sole reason that Broker A had a job with MDW, and later Classic. Clark asked Webb to hire 

Broker A first as a trader for the MDW account and later as a broker at Classic. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 25 of 36
26 

78. In addition to these express false statements, Clark omitted numerous material 

facts regarding his involvement in the scheme charged in Classic I, his relationship with Webb, 

and his relationship with Broker A that were necessary to make other statements he made during 

his interview not misleading in any material way. For example, during the interview, Clark 

stated that based on the Division of Enforcement's questions about Classic and Clark he now 

“thinks it was Webb who was trading” opposite Energy Company and that as a result he “was 

getting a little pissed off as he was sitting there.” However, Clark was not forthcoming with the 

CFTC and did not disclose that he knew about and shared in the profits from Webb’s trading in 

the MDW account based on Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information disclosed by 

Clark. 

79. Clark’s false and misleading statements and misleading omissions during this 

February 28, 2019 interview had the effect of further concealing and allowing Clark and Webb to 

continue both the scheme to misappropriate information from Energy Company by disclosing it 

to Miller and the scheme to extract brokerage kickbacks from Classic, as alleged herein. 

VI. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT 

AND CFTC REGULATIONS

COUNT ONE

Violation of Section 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1), 

and Regulation 180.1(a)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1), (3) (2021) 

(Misappropriation of Material Nonpublic Information) 

80. Paragraphs 1 through 79 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

81. 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) provides, in relevant part: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or 

employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any swap, 

or a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or 

for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 26 of 36
27 

entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in 

contravention of such rules and regulations as the commission 

shall promulgate . . . . 

82. 17 C.F.R § 180.1(a) (2021) provides, in relevant part: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in 

connection with any swap, or contract of sale of any commodity in 

interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to 

the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) Use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, any manipulative 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; . . . or 

(3) Engage, or attempt to engage, in any act, practice, or course of 

business, which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit 

upon any person . . . . 

83. As a trader and later executive for Energy Company, Clark possessed material, 

nonpublic, and confidential information regarding Energy Company’s plans and intentions to 

trade natural gas futures contracts, including the quantity of and at what price Energy Company 

would enter into trades in these contracts.

84. As a trader and later executive for Energy Company, Clark owed a duty to Energy 

Company and was obligated to keep confidential and not misappropriate for his own personal 

benefit information regarding Energy Company’s trading strategy, plans, and intentions to trade 

natural gas futures contracts, including the HH Contract. The employment agreements, policies, 

and procedures governing Clark’s employment with Energy Company also required Clark to 

keep confidential and not misappropriate for his own personal benefit information regarding 

Energy Company’s trading strategy and plans and intentions to trade natural gas futures 

contracts, including the HH Contract. 

85. Clark breached his duty to Energy Company by disclosing to Webb Energy 

Company’s material, nonpublic information, with the intent that Webb would further disclose the 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 27 of 36
28 

block trade order information to Miller, that Miller would trade on the basis of this information, 

and that Clark would share in Miller’s profits from this trading. 

86. Clark also breached his duty to Energy Company by directing Company Trader B 

to disclose to Webb or Broker A, Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information, with the 

intent that either Webb or Broker A would further disclose the block trade order information to 

Miller, that Miller would trade on the basis of this information, and that Clark would share in 

Miller’s profits from this trading. 

87. Each fraudulent or deceptive act, including each instance in which Clark 

misappropriated material, nonpublic information belonging to Energy Company, is alleged as a 

separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1). 

COUNT TWO

Violation of Section 4c(a)(1) and (2), 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(1), (2)

(Fictitious Sales)

88. Paragraphs 1 through 79 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

89. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(1) provides: 

It shall be unlawful for any person to offer to enter into, enter into, 

or confirm the execution of a transaction described in paragraph 

(2) involving the purchase or sale of any commodity for future 

delivery (or any option on such a transaction or option on a 

commodity) or swap, if the transaction is used or may be used to— 

(A) hedge any transaction in interstate commerce in the 

commodity or the product or byproduct of the 

commodity; 

(B) determine the price basis of any such transaction in 

interstate commerce in the commodity; or

(C) deliver any such commodity sold, shipped, or 

received in interstate commerce for the execution of 

the transaction.

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 28 of 36
29 

90. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(2) provides: 

A transaction referred to in paragraph (1) is a transaction that— 

(A)(i) is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade 

as, a ‘wash sale’ or ‘accommodation trade’; or 

 (ii) is a fictitious sale; or

(B) is used to cause any price to be reported, registered, or 

recorded that is not a true and bona fide price. 

91. From at least August 6, 2015 to December 28, 2018, Clark violated 7 U.S.C. 

§ 6c(a)(1) and (2) by entering into trades on behalf of Energy Company that were not executed 

on an arm’s-length basis, but were instead executed at prices that allowed Miller and Omerta to 

generate trading profits that were later shared with Clark. 

92. By executing trades in this manner, Clark allowed Miller and Omerta to obtain 

advantageous prices and negate market risk.

93. Clark’s conduct therefore caused prices to be reported to or recorded by NYMEX 

that were not true and bona fide prices in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(2)(B). 

94. Each fictitious sale, including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein,

is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(1) and (2). 

COUNT THREE

Violation of Sections 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C) and 6(c)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A), 

(C), 9(1), and Regulation 180.1(a)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1), (3) (2021) 

(Participation in Brokerage Kickback Scheme)

95. Paragraphs 1 through 79 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

96. 7 U.S.C. § 6b(1) makes it unlawful:

For any person, in or in connection with any order to make, or the making 

of, any contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce or for 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 29 of 36
30 

future delivery that is made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules of a 

designated contract market, for or on behalf of any other person . . . – 

(A) to cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud the other person; 

. . . [or] 

(C) willfully to deceive or attempt to deceive the other person by any 

means whatsoever in regard to any order or contract or the 

disposition or execution of any order or contract, or in regard to 

any act of agency performed, with respect to any order or contract . 

. . . 

97. 7 U.S.C. § 9(1) provides, in relevant part: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or 

employ, or attempt to use or employ, in connection with any swap, 

or a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce, or 

for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered 

entity, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, in 

contravention of such rules and regulations as the commission 

shall promulgate . . . . 

98. 17 C.F.R § 180.1(a) (2021) provides, in relevant part: 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, in 

connection with any swap, or contract of sale of any commodity in 

interstate commerce, or contract for future delivery on or subject to 

the rules of any registered entity, to intentionally or recklessly: 

(1) Use or employ, or attempt to use or employ, any manipulative 

device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; . . . or 

(3) Engage, or attempt to engage, in any act, practice, or course of 

business, which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit 

upon any person . . . . 

99. Clark failed to disclose and concealed from his employer Energy Company that 

he was receiving a share of the brokerage commissions paid by Energy Company to Webb and 

Classic from the trades he executed and directed other traders at Energy Company (including 

Company Trader B) to execute using Classic as a broker. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 30 of 36
31 

100. Clark’s use of brokers who paid him brokerage commission kickbacks was 

material because Clark was choosing brokers not based on Energy Company’s best interests but 

instead based on which broker would maximize Clark’s personal profit from the brokerage 

commission kickbacks. 

101. Clark directed trades to Classic with knowledge and the specific purpose of 

receiving brokerage commission kickbacks. Clark attempted to conceal these kickback 

payments by structuring payment for his portion of the kickback payments through payments to 

family members and shell entities created expressly for the purpose of receiving the kickbacks. 

102. Each fraudulent or deceptive act, including but not limited to those specifically 

alleged herein, is alleged as a separate and distinct violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A), (C), 

9(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1), (3). 

COUNT FOUR

Violation of Section 6(c)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) 

(False Statements to CFTC)

103. Paragraphs 1 through 79 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

104. 7 U.S.C. § 9(2) makes it unlawful: 

[F]or any person to make any false or misleading statement of a material 

fact to the [CFTC] . . . or to omit to state in any such statement any 

material fact that is necessary to make any statement of material fact made 

not misleading in any material respect, if the person knew, or reasonably 

should have known, the statement to be false or misleading. 

105. Clark made false or misleading statements to the CFTC when he stated that he 

was not aware of any voice broker he used, including Classic, was taking the other side of block 

trade orders, where Clark knew that Webb was in fact taking the other side of Energy 

Company’s block trade orders disclosed by Clark. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 31 of 36
32 

106. Clark made false or misleading statements to the CFTC when he stated that he did 

not expect that any voice broker he used would be acting also as a trader and taking the other 

side of his block trade orders. 

107. Clark also made false or misleading statements to the CFTC when he stated that 

he would not pay brokerage commissions on block trades where the broker was also the 

counterparty to those block trades, where he knew that Webb was acting as both broker and 

trader, and in fact Clark personally profited by receiving a kickback for the brokerage 

commissions paid by Energy Company to Webb. 

108. Clark made false or misleading statements to the CFTC when he stated that Webb 

never disclosed to Clark that he was also trading in a proprietary account; Clark both knew that 

Webb was trading in a proprietary account, and Clark shared in Webb’s profits realized by using 

Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information. 

109. Clark made false or misleading statements to the CFTC when he stated that he 

knew Broker A only as a broker at Classic, when in fact Clark and Broker A were longtime 

friends and Clark secured Broker A’s employment at both MDW and Classic.

110. Finally, Clark omitted material facts necessary to make his statements of material 

facts not misleading in any material respect when, in connection with his responses regarding his 

expectations that brokers he used would keep his block trade order information confidential, he 

failed to disclose and was not forthcoming about his relationship with Webb, and that Webb was 

not in fact keeping Energy Company’s block trade order information confidential but was instead 

himself trading on Energy Company’s material, nonpublic information, with Clark’s knowledge 

and for the purpose of making trading profits that would then be shared with Clark. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 32 of 36
33 

111. All of these false or misleading statements and misleading omissions were 

material, because they went to the heart of the CFTC’s investigation, specifically, whether 

Classic’s customers were aware that Webb was taking the other side of their block trade orders in 

a proprietary account wholly owned by Webb. 

112. Each false or misleading statement or omission of material fact to the CFTC, 

including but not limited to those specifically alleged herein, is alleged as a separate violation of 

7 U.S.C. § 9(2). 

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the CFTC respectfully requests that this Court, as authorized by Section 

6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1, and pursuant to its own equitable powers: 

A. Find that Matthew Clark violated Sections 4b(a)(1)(A) and (C), 4c(a)(1) and (2), 

6(c)(1), (2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A), (C), 6c(a)(1), (2), 9(1), (2); and Regulation 

180.1(a)(1) and (3), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1), (3) (2021). 

B. Enter an order of permanent injunction enjoining Clark, and his affiliates, agents, 

servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in active concert with him, 

who receive actual notice of such order by personal service or otherwise, from engaging in the 

conduct described above, in violation of 7 U.S.C. §§ 6b(a)(1)(A), (C), 6c(a)(1), (2), 9(1), (2) and 

17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(1), (3) (2021); 

C. Enter an order of permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Clark, and his 

affiliates, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons in active 

concert with him, from directly or indirectly:

1. Trading on or subject to the rules of any registered entity (as that term is 

defined in Section 1a(40) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(40)); 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 33 of 36
34 

2. Entering into any transactions involving “commodity interests” (as that 

term is defined in Regulation 1.3, 17 C.F.R. § 1.3 (2021)), for accounts 

held in Clark’s name or for accounts in which Clark has a direct or indirect 

interest;

3. Having any commodity interests traded on Clark’s behalf;

4. Controlling or directing the trading for or on behalf of any other person or 

entity, whether by power of attorney or otherwise, in any account 

involving commodity interests; 

5. Soliciting, receiving, or accepting any funds from any person for the 

purpose of purchasing or selling of any commodity interests;

6. Applying for registration or claiming exemption from registration with the 

CFTC in any capacity, and engaging in any activity requiring such 

registration or exemption from registration with the CFTC except as 

provided for in Regulation 4.14(a)(9), 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9) (2021); and

7. Acting as a principal (as that term is defined in Regulation 3.1(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 3.1(a) (2021)), agent, or any other officer or employee of any 

person registered, exempted from registration, or required to be registered 

with the CFTC except as provided for in 17 C.F.R. § 4.14(a)(9).

D. Enter an order requiring Clark, as well as any third-party transferee and/or 

successors thereof, to disgorge, pursuant to such procedure as the Court may order, all benefits 

received including, but not limited to, salaries, commission, loans, fees, revenues, and trading 

profits derived, directly or indirectly, from acts or practices that constitute violations of the Act 

and Regulations as described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 34 of 36
35 

E. Enter an order requiring Clark, as well as any successors thereof, to make full 

restitution to every person who has sustained losses proximately caused by the violations 

described herein, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

F. Enter an order directing Clark to pay a civil monetary penalty assessed by the 

Court, in an amount not to exceed the penalty prescribed by Section 6c(d)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§ 13a-1(d)(1), as adjusted for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 

Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-74, tit. VII, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 

599-600, see Regulation 143.8, 17 C.F.R. § 143.8 (2021), for each violation of the Act and 

Regulations, described herein;

G. Enter an order requiring Clark to pay costs and fees as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1920 and 2412(a)(2); and 

H. Enter an order providing such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 35 of 36
36 

Dated: February 3, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION

 /s/ Thomas L. Simek 

Thomas L. Simek (Attorney-In-Charge)

DC Bar No. 490030 (pro hac vice pending) 

tsimek@cftc.gov 

J. Alison Auxter 

MO Bar No. 59079 (pro hac vice pending) 

aauxter@cftc.gov 

Clemon D. Ashley 

IL Bar No. 6294839 (pro hac vice pending) 

cashley@cftc.gov 

2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 210 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

(816) 960-7700 (telephone) 

(816) 960-7750 (facsimile) 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 36 of 36
JS 44 (Rev. 04/21) CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as 

provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the 

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff 

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act

120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))

140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment

150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking

151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce

152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and

(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit

of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer

190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act

195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV

196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange

Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters

220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act

240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration

245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure

290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision

446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes

448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of 

Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original

Proceeding 

2 Removed from

State Court

3 Remanded from

Appellate Court 

4 Reinstated or

Reopened

5 Transferred from

Another District

(specify)

6 Multidistrict

Litigation - 

Transfer

8 Multidistrict

Litigation -

Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) 

 IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

26 USC 7609

INTELLECTUAL

Harris

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Thomas L. Simek, J. Alison Auxter, Clemon D. Ashley 

2600 Grand Blvd, Suite 210, Kansas City, MO 64108

Matthew Clark

Dan L. Cogdell 

Jones Walker 

811 Main Street, Suite 2900, Houston, TX 77002

7 U.S.C. §1-26

Misappropriation of material nonpublic information, fictitious sales, false statements to CFTC

February 3, 2022 /s/ Thomas L. Simek

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1-1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ B 

□ § 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

B 

□ 

□ 

□ □ □ □ 

□ □ □ □ 

□ □ □ □ 

□ □ □ □ 
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 04/21)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as 

required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is 

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of 

Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: 

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use 

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then 

the official, giving both name and title.

 (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the 

time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land 

condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) 

 (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting 

in this section "(see attachment)". 

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" 

in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. 

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. 

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. 

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment 

to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes 

precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. 

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the 

citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity 

cases.) 

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this 

section for each principal party. 

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code 

that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. 

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. 

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. 

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. 

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing 

date. 

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. 

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or

multidistrict litigation transfers. 

Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. 

Section 1407. 

Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. 

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to 

changes in statute. 

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional 

statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service. 

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. 

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. 

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. 

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket 

numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. 

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365 Document 1-1 Filed on 02/03/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 2