IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING )

COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 20-cv-03758

)

v. ) Judge: Hon. Thomas M. Durkin

)

LONG LEAF TRADING GROUP, INC., )

JAMES A. DONELSON, TIMOTHY )

M. EVANS, JEREMY S. RUTH, and )

ANDREW D. NELSON, )

)

Defendants. )

ANSWER OF LONG LEAF TRADING GROUP, INC.

Defendant Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc. (“LLTG”), by and through his undersigned 

attorneys, and, for his Answer to the Complaint filed herein, states as follows:

I. SUMMARY

1. From at least June 2015 through December 2019 (“Relevant Period”), Long Leaf 

Trading Group, Inc. (“Long Leaf”), by and though, and at the direction of, its principals, 

Defendants Timothy M. Evans (“Evans”) and James A. Donelson (“Donelson”), and by and 

through its agents and employees, including Defendants Jeremy S. Ruth (“Ruth”) and Andrew D. 

Nelson (“Nelson”) (together with Long Leaf, Evans, and Donelson, “LLT Defendants”), engaged 

in a scheme to defraud customers in connection with options on futures contracts traded on 

designated contract markets, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C §§ 1-

26 (2018), and accompanying Commission Regulations (“Regulations”), 17 C.F.R. pts. 1-190

(2019).

Answer: LLTG admits that Evans and Donelson were principals of LLTG and denies each 

and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 1. 

2. The LLT Defendants knowingly made numerous false and misleading statements of 

material fact to retail customers about the success of Long Leaf’s “Time Means Money” (“TMM”) 

options trading program. The LLT Defendants touted the success of the TMM program, claiming 

that it resulted in profits for customers.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:144
2

Answer: LLTG denies the allegations contained in ¶ 2 of the Complaint as it applies to to 

Donelson. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of an allegation contained in ¶ 2 of the Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

3. In reality, substantially all of Long Leaf’s customers lost money trading pursuant to the 

program. The LLT Defendants were aware of this from customer account statements they received, 

as well as from customers complaining about losses in their accounts. The LLT Defendants 

nonetheless knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose to, or deliberately withheld from, customers 

and prospective customers the material fact that substantially all customers lost money trading 

under the program.

Answer: LLTG admits that various of its customers lost money while initiating trades and 

that he was aware of the losses in customer accounts but otherwise denies the remining allegations 

contained in ¶ 3 of the Complaint as it applies to Donelson. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 3 of the 

Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

4. The LLT Defendants also knowingly or recklessly misled customers as to the status of 

their accounts, claiming that customers made money when in fact they had lost money.

Answer: To the extent that the allegations of ¶ 4 of the Complaint involve Donelson, 

LLTG denies the allegations contained in ¶ 4 of the Complaint. At this time, LLTG lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in 

¶ 4 of the Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

5. During the Relevant Period, Long Leaf’s more than four hundred customers lost 

approximately $6.1 million trading pursuant to Long Leaf’s recommendations. These

recommendations were designed primarily to generate commissions for Long Leaf.

Answer: Since the Plaintiff conflates the number of LLTG’s customer who received TTM 

recommendations with the entirety of its customer base during the relevant time-period, at this 

time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the

allegation contained in ¶ 5 of the Complaint. LLTG denies the allegations contained in the second 

sentence of ¶ 5 of the Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:145
3

6. Long Leaf made more than $4.4 million in commissions from its trade recommendations. 

These commissions accounted for more than seventy percent of customer losses. 

Answer: Given the vagueness of the time-period and which customers are referenced in ¶ 6 

of the Complaint, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth 

of the allegation contained in ¶ 5 of the Complaint.

7. As set forth in greater detail below, the LLT Defendants’ conduct violates numerous 

anti-fraud provisions in the Act and Regulations, including, for all Defendants, Section 4c(b) of 

the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) (2018), and Regulation 33.10, 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 (2019) (fraud in 

connection with options on futures transactions); and Section 4o of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o (2018) 

(fraud by a commodity trading advisor), and, for Long Leaf and its principals, Regulation 4.41(a), 

17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (2019) (fraudulent advertising by a commodity trading advisor).

Answer. To the extent that the allegations of ¶ 7 of the Complaint involve Donelson, LLTG 

denies the allegations contained in ¶ 7 of the Complaint. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 7 of the

Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

8. Long Leaf failed to make required customer disclosures relating to client accounts 

guided pursuant to a “systematic program that recommends specific trades,” in violation of 

Regulation 4.31(a) and (b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.31(a), (b) (2019). Long Leaf failed to file any such 

disclosures with the National Futures Association (“NFA”), in violation of Regulation 4.36(d)(1), 

17 C.F.R. § 4.36(d)(1) (2019).

Answer. To the extent that the allegations of ¶ 8 of the Complaint involve Donelson, LLTG

denies the allegations contained in ¶ 8 of the Complaint. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 8 of the 

Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

9. Certain LLT Defendants are liable for registration violations, including failure to 

register as a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) under Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) 

(2018), and failure to register as associated persons (“APs”) under Section 4k(1) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 6k(1) (2018), and Regulations 3.12(a) and 33.3(b)(1) and (2), 17 C.F.R. §§ 3.12(a), 

33.3(b)(1), (2) (2019).

Answer. To the extent that the allegations of ¶ 9 of the Complaint involve Donelson, LLTG

denies the allegations contained in ¶ 9 of the Complaint. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:146
4

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 9 of the 

Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

10. Long Leaf’s former and current principals, Defendants Evans and Donelson, 

respectively, are liable for Long Leaf’s violations as controlling persons, pursuant to Section 13(b) 

of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018).

Answer. To the extent that the allegations of ¶ 10 of the Complaint involve Donelson, 

LLGT denies the allegations contained in ¶ 10 of the Complaint. At this time, LLTG lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in 

¶ 10 of the Complaint as it relates to other Defendants.

11. Unless restrained and enjoined by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to 

engage in the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint or in similar acts and practices, as 

described more fully below.

Answer: LLTG denies the allegations contained in ¶ 11 of the Complaint.

12. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1 (2018), the 

commission brings this action to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices and to compel 

compliance with the Act and Regulations. In addition, the Commission seeks civil monetary 

penalties and remedial ancillary relief, including, but not limited to, trading and registration bans, 

restitution, disgorgement, rescission, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the 

Court may deem necessary and appropriate. The CFTC demands a trial by jury on all issues so 

triable.

Answer: Since the allegations of ¶ 12 of the Complaint are statements of Plaintiff’s intent 

and motivation in bring this action, no answer is required to ¶12 of the Complaint; however, to the 

extent that the allegations infer any wrongdoing LLGT denies such allegations.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018) (codifying 

federal question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345 (2018) (providing that U.S. 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). In addition, Section 6c(a) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(a) 

(2018), provides that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to hear actions brought by the 

Commission for injunctive and other relief or to enforce compliance with the Act whenever it shall 

appear to the Commission that any person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:147
5

act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order 

thereunder.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in ¶ 13 of the Complaint.

14. Venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(e) because Defendants 

transacted business in this District, and certain of the acts and practices in violation of the Act have 

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

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in ¶ 14 of the Complaint.

III. PARTIES

15. Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is an 

independent federal regulatory agency charged by Congress with administering and enforcing the 

Act and accompanying Regulations.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in ¶ 15 of the Complaint.

16. Defendant Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal 

place of business in Chicago, Illinois, which is in turn owned by Donelson Enterprises, Inc., a nonparty Illinois corporation. Long Leaf was throughout the Relevant Period, and continues to be, 

registered with the Commission as an introducing broker (“IB”).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in ¶ 16 of the Complaint.

17. Defendant Timothy M. Evans is a natural person. Evans was the founder of Long Leaf, as 

well as its owner and CEO from at least 2009 through December 2017. During that period, Evans 

resided in Chicago, Illinois. Sometime after 2017, Evans relocated to Tulum, Mexico, where he 

currently resides. Evans was registered with the Commission as an AP of Long Leaf from 2010 through 

2018. Evans has no current registration status with the Commission. 

Answer. LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth 

of the allegation regarding Evans’ residence but otherwise admits the allegations contained in ¶ 17 

of the Complaint.

18. Defendant James A. Donelson is a natural person. Donelson has been the CEO of Long 

Leaf from December 2017 through the present. Donelson resides in Aurora, Illinois. Donelson 

controls Long Leaf and Donelson Enterprises, Inc. Donelson was registered with the Commission 

as an AP of Long Leaf from June 2018 through December 2019. Donelson has no current 

registration status with the Commission.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in ¶ 18 of the Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:148
6

19. Defendant Jeremy S. Ruth is a natural person. Ruth was registered with the Commission 

as an AP of Long Leaf from April 2015 through August 2017. During the period he worked for 

Long Leaf, Ruth resided in Chicago, Illinois. Upon information and belief, Ruth currently splits 

his time between Chicago, Illinois and Austin, Texas. Ruth has no current registration status with 

the Commission.

Answer. LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth 

of the allegation regarding Ruth’s residence but otherwise admits the allegations contained in ¶ 19 

of the Complaint.

20. Defendant Andrew D. Nelson is a natural person. Nelson acted as an AP for Long Leaf 

from September 2017 through July 2018, by soliciting and accepting customer orders. From July 2018 

through November 2018, Nelson worked for Long Leaf reviewing and developing solicitation 

materials. Nelson resided in Chicago, Illinois while working for Long Leaf. Upon information and 

belief, Nelson currently resides Elmhurst, Illinois. Nelson has never been registered with the 

Commission as an AP of Long Leaf or in any other capacity. 

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 20 of the Complaint.

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Long Leaf Was an Introducing Broker, Introducing Accounts and 

Generating Commissions.

21. Pursuant to relevant parts of Section 1a(31) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1a(31) (2018), an 

IB is any person “engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for the purchase or sale of,” among 

other financial instruments, commodity futures, swaps, and commodity options, but who “does not 

accept any money, securities, or property (or extend credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or 

secure any trades or contracts that result or may result therefrom.” Throughout the Relevant Period, 

Long Leaf was an IB, and was registered as such with the Commission.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 21 of the Complaint.

22. An IB cannot place customer orders on a designated contract market. Rather, an IB 

introduces its customers to a futures commission merchant (“FCM”), where each customer must 

open an account for trading on a designated contract market.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 22 of the Complaint.

23. An IB earns revenue in the form of a commission when a customer places a trade (or 

when the IB places a trade on behalf of the customer) in an account with the FCM in accordance 

with the customer’s agreement with the IB.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 23 of the Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:149
7

24. Commissions are typically assessed on a per-trade basis, on whatever terms are 

agreed to between the IB and the customer. Commissions are deducted from the customer’s 

account by the FCM, with a portion retained by the FCM and the balance forwarded to the IB. As 

will be described in greater detail below, during the Relevant Period, Long Leaf introduced 

customers to certain FCMs and received commissions for orders executed in those customer 

accounts.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 24 of the Complaint.

25. A person who works for an IB in any capacity that involves the solicitation or 

acceptance of customer orders, or the supervision of such persons, is referred to as an “associated 

person” or “AP”. Pursuant to relevant provisions of Section 4k(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1) 

(2018), it is unlawful for a person to be associated as an AP of an IB without being registered as 

such.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 25 of the Complaint.

B. Long Leaf Made Trading Recommendations to Customers as Part of the 

“Time Means Money Program.”

26. Starting in at least June 2015, Long Leaf began soliciting customers and prospective

customers to participate in Long Leaf’s so-called “Time Means Money” options trading program.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 26 of the Complaint.

27. Long Leaf provided customers that agreed to participate in the TMM program with 

trading recommendations, typically four recommendations every month. Each recommendation 

was for a different spread trade, with each trade typically involving four out-of- the-money options 

on futures contracts traded on designated contract markets, i.e., exchanges, such as the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 27 of the Complaint.

28. A spread trade is a trade in which a trader simultaneously buys and sells contracts 

in the same (or related) commodity interests in order to “bracket” the market. An option on futures 

contract is the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell a futures contract upon or before expiry 

of the option at a pre-determined “strike” price. An option is out-of-the-money if it cannot be 

profitably exercised at the current market price.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 28 of the Complaint.

29. Every customer participating in the TMM program received the same 

recommendations as every other customer. The only difference was in the number of contracts 

recommended per spread trade; customers with more equity, i.e., value, in their accounts would be 

advised to trade more contracts; customers with less equity would be advised to trade fewer 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:150
8

contracts. Customers who desired higher returns would also be advised to trade more contracts; 

this component of the program was “customized” on an individual basis for participants.

Answer: LLTG denies that all customers in the TMM program received the same 

recommendations. Therefore, LLTG denies the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 29 of the 

Complaint since those allegations are based on this misstatement.

30. Long Leaf’s APs, including Defendants Ruth and Nelson (collectively, the “AP

Defendants”), provided the recommendations to Long Leaf customers typically by email or over 

the phone.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 30 of the Complaint.

31. Long Leaf did not utilize powers of attorney or letters of direction in connection 

with the TMM program. Long Leaf’s APs instructed customers to simply respond “yes” in a text 

or email to accept the recommended trades.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 31 of the Complaint.

32. Long Leaf would forward the customer orders to its FCM, either over the phone or 

via an electronic trading platform. The FCM would then place the orders on the exchange to be

executed.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 32 of the Complaint.

33. Long Leaf was not registered as a CTA even though it was acting as one. Pursuant 

to relevant parts of Section 1a(12) of the Act, 7 U.S.C § 1a(12), a CTA is a person or entity engaged 

in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications, writings, or electronic 

media, as to the value of or the advisability of trading commodity options in return for 

compensation. In this case, the compensation took the form of commissions assessed against 

recommended trades.

Answer: LLTG was required to register as a CTA. LLTG admits it charged commissions. 

LLTG otherwise denies the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 33 of the Complaint.

34. Long Leaf failed to provide customers with certain disclosures required by the 

Regulations when a CTA guides customer accounts pursuant to a systematic trading program. 

These required disclosures include, inter alia, the CTA’s (and the program’s) track record, or lack

thereof.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:151
9

Answer: LLTG denies that it was required to register as a CTA and that it was required to 

provide its customers with the disclosures stated in ¶ 34 of the Complaint. LLTG otherwise admits 

the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 34 of the Complaint.

C. Long Leaf APs Made False and Misleading Statements About the Success 

of the TMM Program.

35. Long Leaf, by and through its APs, including the AP Defendants, made false and 

misleading statements to customers and prospective customers to induce them to participate in the 

TMM program. Those statements were set forth in various scripts and presentations provided to 

the APs by management, i.e., Defendants Evans and, later, Donelson, and included the following:

a. Long Leaf uses options-selling strategies to “drive results”; the results are 

attributable to the “basic advantage the seller has,” which is that “on average 76.5%

of options expire worthless.” “[I]f you sell 4 options, there is a strong statistical 

likelihood you are going to win 3 on those . . . giving you a much more predictable 

path to success.”

b. Long Leaf was founded on the principal that “[w]e should provide our clients a 

strong return on their investment.” Long Leaf measures its success by the success 

of its clients; “[a]s a company, we wouldn’t have the ability to work with hundreds 

of clients month-after-month for 6 years and oversee millions of dollars if we

weren’t being profitable for them .................................”

c. Long Leaf combines industry expertise, technical analysis, and a “proprietary 

algorithm” to “form ideas that have been providing a strong return for our clients.”

d. Trades recommended by Long Leaf are “more likely than not” to make money for 

customers.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation regarding Ruth’s residence but otherwise admits the allegations 

contained in ¶ 35 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior to January 1, 2018. LLTG admits 

that its representatives used scripts. LLTG admits the quotations cited in this Paragraph of the 

Complaint may have been said to certain customers but denies that the quotations, when the 

conversations are taken as a whole are misleading. in so far as conversations occurring after 

January 1, 2018. 

36. Promotional materials utilized by Long Leaf also included a power point 

presentation showing an annual return of twelve percent on a $100,000 account with Long Leaf. 

Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, showed this presentation to prospective customers 

(via the web) and told them it would be “easy” to achieve a twelve percent return with TMM.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:152
10

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation regarding Ruth’s residence but otherwise admits the allegations 

contained in ¶ 36 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior to January 1, 2018. LLTG admits 

that subsequent to January 1, 2018, representatives of LLTG used power point presentations 

scripts. LLTG affirmatively states that, to his knowledge, the entirety of the presentations was

neither false or misleading. LLTG admits the quotations cited in this Paragraph of the Complaint 

may have been said to certain customers but denies that the quotations, when the conversations are 

taken as a whole are misleading in so far as conversations. 

37. Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, made some or all of these false and 

misleading statements to substantially every customer and prospective customer throughout the 

Relevant Period.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 37 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. LLTG denies that Donelson ever made any false or misleading statements to 

customers or prospective customers of LLTG. 

D. Substantially All Customers Lost Money in the TMM Program.

38. In reality, substantially all Long Leaf customers lost money under the TMM 

program. Not only that, many customers lost all funds deposited in their accounts. In many cases, 

these were customers’ retirement accounts.

Answer: While various customers of LLTG lost money, including in certain retirement 

accounts, terms such as “substantially” and “many” are too indefinite to enable Donelson to 

formulate a responsive; therefore, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 38 of the Complaint.

39. During the Relevant Period, more than four hundred Long Leaf customers lost more 

than $6.1 million trading pursuant to Long Leaf’s recommendations. The TMM program was a 

failure for Long Leaf’s customers from the outset; in the first two months of the program, June 

and July of 2015, customers lost $348,000. In the first nineteen months of the program,i.e., through 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:153
11

the end of December 2016, customers lost $1.53 million. Customers continued to lose money each 

year after that; $2.35 million in 2017, $1.5 million 2018, and $809,000 in 2019.

Answer: LLTG admits that various customers lost money. At this time, LLTG lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation contained in 

¶ 39 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior to January 1, 2018. LLTG further denies that 

the TMM program was a failure. LLTG otherwise admits the computations in ¶ 39 of the 

Complaint and that customer accounts lost money due to market action and denies any allegations 

of wrongdoing.

E. The LLT Defendants Were Aware of Customer Losses.

40. Long Leaf’s principals, Defendants Evans and, later, Donelson, were aware that 

customers lost money trading under the TMM program. Evans and Donelson knew customers were 

losing money because they monitored the recommended trades on a real-time basis. They also 

received daily account statements showing losses in substantially all customer accounts. Moreover, 

Evans and Donelson received calls and emails from customers complaining about losses in their

accounts.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 40 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or that relate to Evans. LLTG otherwise admits the remining allegations 

contained in ¶ 41 of the Complaint.

41. Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, were aware of customer losses as 

well. Long Leaf APs received daily account statements for their customers. Long Leaf APs, 

including the AP Defendants, also received complaints from their customers about the poor 

performance of their accounts.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 41 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or to what other persons knew or did not know. LLTG otherwise admits the 

remining allegations contained in ¶ 41 of the Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:154
12

42. Despite their knowledge of customer losses, Long Leaf, through its APs, including 

the AP Defendants, continued to misrepresent that trading under the TMM program was profitable 

for customers.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 42 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or to other persons’ actions. LLTG otherwise denies the remaining allegations 

contained in ¶ 42 of the Complaint. 

F. The LLT Defendants Concealed Losses from Customers and

Prospective Customers.

43. The LLT Defendants actively concealed losses from customers and prospective 

customers. Long Leaf had a policy of refusing to provide customers or prospective customers with 

historical trading results, average returns, or any kind of track record. The policy was instituted by 

Evans, and continued under Donelson.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 43 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or that relate to Evans. LLTG denied that Donelson engaged in any activity to 

conceal any information from any LLTG customer.

44. When customers asked if Long Leaf’s recommendations were profitable for 

customers, Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, claimed falsely that it was illegalfor 

Long Leaf to provide that information.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 44 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. LLTG otherwise denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 

44 of the Complaint. 

45. Long Leaf provided APs with a script for how to deal with requests for past 

performance. The script instructed APs to tell customers that they could “sit here and show you 

trades and WOW you or something like that,” but the “success” of the TMM program is 

attributable to its “structure,” i.e., recommending spread trades in options on uncorrelated 

commodity futures.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:155
13

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation that relate to any period prior to January 1, 2018. LLTG admits 

that subsequent to January 1, 2018, representatives of LLTG used scripts approved by LLTG’s 

attorney in soliciting customers. LLTG affirmatively states that, to its knowledge, the entirety of 

the conversations with customers were neither false or misleading. LLTG admits the quotations 

cited in this Paragraph of the Complaint may have been said to certain customers but denies that 

the quotations, when the conversations are taken as a whole are misleading in so far as 

conversations occurring after January 1, 2018. 

46. Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, used the script regularly throughout 

the Relevant Period.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 46 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. LLTG admits that subsequent to January 1, 2018, representatives of LLTG

used scripts approved by it’s attorney in soliciting customers. 

G. The LLT Defendants Took Advantage of Customer Confusion.

47. Long Leaf’s customers were retail customers. Many customers had difficulty 

understanding the account statements they received from the FCM. Long Leaf APs, including the 

AP Defendants, took advantage of their customers’ confusion.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 47 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or to what any customer understood or what any AP’s thoughts were. LLTG 

otherwise denies each and every allegation contained in ¶ 47 of the Complaint.

48. Sometimes Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, would tell a customer 

that he or she had made money when in fact the customer had lost money. Other times they would 

tell a customer that he or she had made money on one of the recommended trades while failing to 

mention the customer had lost money on the other three.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:156
14

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 48 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or what other persons said or may have said or not have said to other customers. 

LLTG otherwise denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 48 of the Complaint.

49. For customers who understood they were losing money, Long Leaf APs, including 

the AP Defendants, would sometimes claim (falsely) that account statements did not reflect 

“unrealized P&L.” Other times, they would acknowledge the losses, but claim that Long Leaf 

tended to “perform well coming out of [ ] periods where we take a loss” because of “volatility.” 

This was untrue.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 49 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018 or what other persons said or may have said or not have said to other customers. 

LLTG otherwise denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 49 of the Complaint.

H. Long Leaf Made Millions in Commissions from the TMM Program.

50. From a sales perspective, the TMM program was a great success. Within a few 

months after the program was introduced, substantially all Long Leaf customers were participating 

in it.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 50 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. Because of the use of words such as “great” and “substantially” LLTG is unable 

to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 50 of the Complaint.

51. Long Leaf’s revenues expanded dramatically as a result of the TMM program.

Before the program, Long Leaf was dependent on commissions from self-directed customers, or 

from one-off trading recommendations. The TMM program allowed Long Leaf to systemically 

generate commissions on a large scale by selling customers on the “idea” of the program.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 51 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. Because of the use of the word “dramatically,” LLTG is unable to form a belief 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:157
15

about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 51 of the Complaint. While LLTG

admits commissions were charged as part of the TMM program, LLTG otherwise denies the 

remaining allegations contained in ¶ 51 of the Complaint.

52. While customers lost money, Long Leaf made money in the form of its share of 

commissions received from the FCM executing recommended trades and carrying the customer 

accounts. During the Relevant Period, the TMM program generated more than $4.4 million in 

commissions for Long Leaf. Long Leaf made $373,000 from the program in 2015; $1.25 million 

in 2016; $1.54 million in 2017; $869,000 in 2018; and $369,000 in 2019.

Answer: LLTG admits that various Long Leaf customers lost money. At this time, LLTG

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegation 

contained in ¶ 52 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior to January 1, 2018. LLTG

otherwise admits the computations in ¶ 39 of the Complaint and that the customer accounts lost 

money due to market action and denies any allegations of wrongdoing.

I. Long Leaf’s Trade Recommendations Were Designed to Maximize Commissions.

53. Long Leaf’s trading recommendations were designed primarily to generate 

commissions. The trades had little potential economic benefit for customers. Even if the trades 

won, it was not possible for them to win much.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 53 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. LLTG otherwise denies the allegations contained in ¶ 53 of the Complaint.

54. On the occasions when one of Long Leaf’s recommended trades did win, Long 

Leaf’s commissions typically resulted in net losses for customers. Indeed, the $4.4 million in 

commissions received by Long Leaf accounted for more than seventy percent of the $6.1 million 

that customers lost.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 54 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. While LLTG does not dispute the mathematical allegations, LLTG denies the 

remaining allegations in ¶ 54 of the Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:158
16

55. By recommending four trades a month, each consisting of four legs, i.e., four 

individual option trades, the TMM program allowed Long Leaf to generate at least sixteen 

commissions per customer every month. This had the effect of steadily depleting customer 

accounts over time.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegation contained in ¶ 55 of the Complaint that relate to any period prior 

to January 1, 2018. While LLTG does not dispute the mathematical allegations, LLTG denies the 

remaining allegations in ¶ 55 of the Complaint, including the erroneous assumptions implicit 

therein.

56. Long Leaf APs, including the AP Defendants, shared in these commissions.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 56 of the Complaint.

J. Defendant Ruth Knowingly Made False and Misleading Statements and 

Omissions to Customers and Prospective Customers.

57. As set forth above, Ruth worked as an AP of Long Leaf from at least April 2015 

through August 2017. Ruth was one of Long Leaf’s most prolific and highest-paid APs.

Answer: Donelson admits the allegations contained in the first sentence of ¶ 57 of the 

Complaint. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 57 of the Complaint

58. Ruth made numerous false and misleading statements to customers and prospective 

customers about profits and losses in the TMM program. In investigative testimony, Ruth admitted 

that he followed the script given to him by Evans. This included the representations set forth above 

in paragraph 35.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 58 of the Complaint.

59. For example, in a May 3, 2017, call with Prospective Customer A (an eighty-one 

year old Vietnam veteran), Ruth represented:

a. Because “76.5% of options expire worthless,” Long Leaf customers 

have a “higher probability of winning;”

b. It is “very easy to ... accomplish 12% on an annual basis.”

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:159
17

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 59 of the Complaint.

60. Ruth made these or other similar statements to substantially every customer or 

prospective customer during his tenure at Long Leaf.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 60 of the Complaint.

61. Ruth also made off-script misrepresentations to customers and prospective 

customers about the profitability of Long Leaf’s trading recommendations. In an email dated July 

25, 2017, for example, Ruth wrote to Customer B: “Normally with a 10k account my clients target 

$500 to $1000 per month. Obviously there are going to be months where we don’t win, but getting 

an average of win in that range is a realistic target.” Earlier the same day, Ruth had sent an email 

to Evans about $16,000 in losses in a different customer’s account.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 61 of the Complaint.

62. Ruth knew that his statements to customers were false. Ruth received daily account 

statements for the customers that he serviced. Some of those customers Ruth originated; others he 

inherited from APs that had left the firm. Substantially all of the customers’ accounts had lost

money.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 62 of the Complaint.

63. Ruth also fielded customer calls and emails complaining about losses in their 

accounts. For example, on August 30, 2016, Customer C sent Ruth an email complaining that: 

“My account is down 33% when I look at my cash balance. At this point, I need a 50% return on 

current capital just to get back to where we started a year ago. Even if you met the targeted 20% 

return per year that we initially discussed, it will be 2+ years to recover.” Ruth received similar 

complaints throughout his tenure at Long Leaf.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 63 of the Complaint.

64. Starting as early as April 2017, Ruth started personally tracking returns on each 

recommended trade. Substantially all of them were losses; in an April 13, 2017, email,for example, 

Ruth sent a chart to two other Long Leaf APs showing losses of $970 per customer for the previous 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:160
18

month’s recommendations. Ruth continued to track losses on a per-trade basis through the end of 

the Relevant Period. Ruth nonetheless continued to misrepresent to customers that trading with 

TMM would be profitable.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 64 of the Complaint.

65. Pursuant to Long Leaf’s policy, Ruth did not tell any customer or prospective 

customer that almost all of Long Leaf’s customers lost money. Ruth encouraged other Long Leaf 

APs to do the same. In an April 27, 2017, email to another AP, Ruth attached a recording from a 

recent sales call, advising the AP that “the value in this call is how to get around a request for a 

track record and how to show empathy so he feels you understand him.”

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 65 of the Complaint.

66. Ruth misled customers as to the status of their accounts. For example, on June 22, 

2017, Customer D wrote to Ruth complaining about account losses. Ruth wrote back: “[W]e are 

then re-initiating the portfolio, we are now capturing that existing volatility with higher premiums 

on our option sales. This is why we tend to perform well coming out of these periods where we 

take a loss.”

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 66 of the Complaint.

67. During the Relevant Period, Ruth was paid approximately $300,000 by Long Leaf, 

primarily in the form of commissions.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 67 of the Complaint.

K. Defendant Nelson Knowingly Made False and Misleading Statements and 

Omissions to Customers and Prospective Customers.

68. As set forth above, Nelson acted in the capacity of an AP of Long Leaf from at least 

September 2017 through at least July 2018. Nelson was not, however, registered as anAP of Long 

Leaf as required by the Act and Regulations.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:161
19

Answer: LLTG admits that all persons acting in the capacity of an AP must register. At 

this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in ¶ 68 of the Complaint.

69. Nelson made numerous false and misleading statements to customers and 

prospective customers about profits and losses in the TMM program. In investigative testimony,

Nelson admitted that he followed the script given to him by Evans. This included the 

representations set forth above in paragraph 35.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 69 of the Complaint.

70. For example, in a January 4, 2018, call with Customer E, Nelson represented:

a. “As a company we would not have the ability to work with hundreds of

clients month after month for nine years and oversee millions if we were 

not being profitable for our clients”

b. “Tim [Evans] uses a proprietary methodology to then blend all these

ideas together that have been providing strong returns for our clients.”

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 70 of the Complaint.

71. Nelson made these or other similar statements to substantially every customer or 

prospective customer during his tenure at Long Leaf.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 71 of the Complaint.

Nelson made additional, off-script misrepresentations to customers and prospective customers 

about the profitability of Long Leaf’s trading recommendations. For example, in a May 3, 2018, 

call with Customer F, Nelson represented: “For the last month what I’ve done for the more 

aggressive guys I have . . . they are up a little bit over fifty percent; my more conservative guys 

are more around the thirty-two, thirty-five percent mark.”

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 72 of the Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:162
20

73. Nelson knew that his statements to customers were false. Nelson received daily 

account statements for the customers that he serviced. Some of those customers Nelson originated; 

others he inherited from APs that had left the firm. Substantially all of the customers’ accounts 

had lost money.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 73 of the Complaint.

74. Nelson also fielded customer calls and emails complaining about losses in their 

accounts. For example, on January 29, 2018, Customer G sent an email to Nelson complaining 

that his account balance had decreased from $30,000 to $12,000. Nelson responded by falsely

assuring Customer G that his account statements do not reflect “unrealized P&L.” Nelson received 

similar complaints throughout his tenure at Long Leaf.

Answer: At this time, LLTG admits that Nelson received a complaint from customer G 

and responded; however, this excerpt of the email does not convey the full import of what Nelson 

was attempting to communicate. Donelson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 73 of the Complaint.

75. Pursuant to Long Leaf’s policy, Nelson never provided any track record or accurate 

information about returns to any customer or prospective customer. Nelson did not tell any 

customer or prospective customer that almost all of Long Leaf’s customers lost money. In 

investigative testimony, Nelson acknowledged that he failed to disclose losses to customers 

because “that’s not going to get us any more client capital.”

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of g allegations contained in the first, second and last sentences of ¶ 75 of the 

Complaint. At this time, LLTG also lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 75. LLTG denies the allegation that, for 

the period after January 1, 2018, Long leaf had a policy of providing inaccurate information to 

customers.

76. Nelson also lied to customers about his ability to share information regarding 

historic returns. In a November 1, 2017, call, for example, Nelson explained to customer H that he 

was precluded from disclosing Long Leaf’s track record because of “HIPAA.” HIPAA is the 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and does not preclude the disclosure of trading

returns.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:163
21

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 75.

77. Nelson additionally misled customers as to the status of their accounts. For 

example, on February 5, 2018, Customer I wrote to Nelson asking how the most recent trade went; 

Nelson responded that “3/4 are hitting our profit target already . . . between 100 - 200%.” In reality, 

three out of the four recommended trades had lost money, for a net loss of $2,200 in Customer I’s 

account.

Answer: LLTG admits that Customer I wrote to Nelson asking how a trade went. The 

excerpt of the email quoted in ¶ 77 of the Complaint does not give proper context of the entire 

exchange and therefore, LLTG denies the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 77 of the 

Complaint.

78. During the Relevant Period, Nelson was paid approximately $33,000, a 

combination of commissions and salary (for assisting in developing solicitation materials).

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the contained in ¶ 78 of the Complaint.

V. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY VIOLATIONS

COUNT I

Fraud in Connection with Options on Futures Contracts

Violation of Section 4c(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § _6c(b) (2018), 

and Regulation 33.10, 17 C.F.R. § _33.10 (2019)

(Against all LLT Defendants)

79. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 78 above are re-alleged and 

incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

Answer: LLTG realleges its answers to Paragraphs 1 thru 78 as though fully set forth 

herein.

80. 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) provides that no person shall offer to enter into, enter into, or 

confirm the execution of, any transaction involving any commodity which is of the character of, 

or is commonly known to the trade as, an “option,” contrary to any rule, regulation, or order of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:164
22

the Commission prohibiting any such transaction or allowing any such transaction under such 

terms and conditions as the Commission shall prescribe.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 80 of the Complaint.

81. 17 C.F.R. § 33.10 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person directly or 

indirectly to: (a) cheat or defraud or attempt to cheat or defraud any other person; (b) make or 

cause to be made to any other person any false report or statement thereof; or (c) deceive or attempt 

to deceive any other person by any means whatsoever, in or in connection with an offer to enter 

into, the entry into, the confirmation of the execution of, or the maintenance of, any commodity 

option transaction.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 81 of the Complaint.

82. As set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 78, the LLT Defendants engaged in a 

fraudulent scheme with respect to the TMM program, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6c(b) and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 33.10. The LLT Defendants did so by knowingly or recklessly making false and misleading 

statements to customers and prospective customers about the profitability of trading pursuant to 

recommendations provided by Long Leaf.

Answer: LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth 

of the contained in ¶ 82 of the Complaint referencing the time period prior to January 1, 2018. 

To the extent that the remaining allegations in ¶ 82 of the Complaint are direct to Donelson, he 

denies each and every such allegation.

83. Moreover, the LLT Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose that 

substantially all customers lost money trading pursuant to Long Leaf’s recommendations. This is 

a fact that a reasonable investor would find material in determining whether to invest, and without 

which other statements by the LLT Defendants were misleading.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the contained in ¶ 83 of the Complaint referencing the time period prior to 

January 1, 2018. To the extent that the remaining allegations in ¶ 83 of the Complaint are directed

to Donelson, LLTG denies each and every such allegation.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:165
23

84. The false and misleading statements and omissions made by the officers, agents, or 

other persons acting by or on behalf of Long Leaf, including Long Leaf’s APs, were made within 

the scope of each such person’s agency or employment. As such, Long Leaf is liable for each such 

person’s false or misleading statements or omissions pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2018), and Regulation 1.2, 17 C.F.R. § 1.2 (2019).

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 84 of the Complaint referencing the time period 

prior to January 1, 2018. To the extent that the remaining allegations in ¶ 84 of the Complaint are 

directed to Donelson, LLTG denies each and every such allegation.

85. Defendant Evans was the founder, CEO, and owner of Long Leaf from at least June 

2015 through December 2017, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or 

indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. 

As such, Evans controlled Long Leaf during that period. Evans did not act in good faith with 

respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long 

Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Evans is liable for Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least June 2015 through 

December 2017, pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b) (2018).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 85 of the Complaint. 

At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of 

the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 85 of the Complaint. 

86. Defendant Donelson was the CEO of Long Leaf from at least December 2017 through 

the present, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or indirectly, the power to 

direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. As such, Donelson 

controlled Long Leaf during that period. Donelson did not act in good faith with respect to, and 

knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Donelson is liable for Long Leaf’s violations 

of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least December 2017 through the 

present, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 86 of the Complaint. 

Donelson denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 86 of the Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:166
24

COUNT II

Fraud by a Commodity Trading Advisor 

Violation of Section 4o of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6o 

(2018)

(Against all LLT Defendants)

87. The Act defines a commodity trading adviser (“CTA”), in relevant part, as a person 

who, for compensation of profit, engages in the business of advising others as to the value of or 

the advisability of trading in commodity options, including options on futures contracts. 7 U.S.C. 

§ 1a(12)(A)(i), (ii) (2018).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 87 of the Complaint.

88. During the Relevant Period, and as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 78, Long Leaf 

provided customers with recommendations for trading options on futures contracts pursuant to the 

TMM program. Long Leaf did so for compensation or profit, which it received in the form of 

commissions paid to it by FCMs on a per-trade basis. As such, Long Leaf was acting in the capacity 

of a CTA within the meaning of the Act.

Answer: LLTG admits that, in its capacity as an introducing broker, LLTG provided 

recommendations to customer like all introducing brokers do and that it did so for compensation 

on a per-trade basis if those recommendations were accepted and acted upon by customers. At this 

time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the 

allegations contained in ¶ 88 of the Complaint referencing the time period prior to January 1, 2018.

LLTG denies the allegations contained in the last sentence of ¶ 88 of the Complaint.

89. 7 U.S.C. § 6o (a) provides that it shall be unlawful for a CTA or associated person 

thereof, directly or indirectly, to: (a) employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud a customer 

or prospective customer; or (b) engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which 

operates as a fraud or deceit upon any customer or prospective customer.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 89 of the Complaint.

90. As set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 78, Long Leaf engaged in a fraudulent 

scheme with respect to the TMM program, in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6o. Long Leaf did so by 

knowingly or recklessly making false and misleading statements to customers and prospective 

customers, through its employees and agents, about the profitability of trading pursuant to 

recommendations provided by Long Leaf.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:167
25

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 90 of the Complaint referencing the time period 

prior to January 1, 2018. To the extent any allegation in ¶ 90 of the Complaint is directed towards

Donelson, LLTG denies each and every such allegation.

91. Moreover, Long Leaf knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose, acting through its 

employees and agents, that substantially all customers lost money trading pursuant to Long Leaf’s 

recommendations. This is a fact that a reasonable investor would find material in determining 

whether to invest, and without which other statements by the LLT Defendants were misleading.

Answer. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 91 of the Complaint referencing the time period 

prior to January 1, 2018. To the extent any allegation in ¶ 91 of the Complaint is directed towards

Donelson, LLTG denies each and every such allegation. Moreover, to the extent that an 

allegation contained in ¶ 91 of the Complaint is argumentative, LLTG denies each such 

allegation.

92. The false and misleading statements and omissions made by the officers, agents, or 

other persons acting by or on behalf of Long Leaf, including Long Leaf’s APs, were made within 

the scope of each such person’s agency or employment. As such, Long Leaf is liable for each such 

person’s false or misleading statements or omissions pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) and 17 

C.F.R. § 1.2.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 92 of the Complaint referencing the time period 

prior to January 1, 2018. To the extent any allegation in ¶ 92 of the Complaint is directed towards 

Donelson, LLTG denies each and every such allegation.

93. Defendant Evans was the founder, CEO, and owner of Long Leaf from at least June 

2015 through December 2017, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or 

indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. 

As such, Evans controlled Long Leaf during that period. Evans did not act in good faith with 

respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long 

Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Evans is liable for Long Leaf’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:168
26

violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least June 2015 through 

December 2017, pursuant 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 93 of the Complaint. 

At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of 

the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 93 of the Complaint. 

94. Defendant Donelson was the CEO of Long Leaf from at least December 2017 

through the present, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or indirectly, the 

power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. As such, 

Donelson controlled Long Leaf during that period. Donelson did not act in good faith with respect 

to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Donelson is liable for Long Leaf’s violations 

of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least December 2017 through the 

present, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 94 of the Complaint. 

LLTG denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 94 of the Complaint. 

95. Defendants Ruth and Nelson are liable pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act, 7 

U.S.C. § 13c(a) (2018), for aiding and abetting Long Leaf’s CTA fraud. As set forth above, the 

AP Defendants knowingly made misstatements and omissions of material fact in order to further 

Long Leaf’s fraudulent business.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 95 of the Complaint.

COUNT III

Fraudulent Advertising by a Commodity Trading Advisor

Violation of Regulation 4.41, 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) (2019)

(Against Long Leaf, Evans, and Donelson)

96. 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a) makes it unlawful for a CTA or any principal thereof to 

advertise in a manner which: (1) employs any device, scheme or artifice to defraud any customer 

or prospective customer; or (2) involves any transaction, practice or course of business which 

operates as a fraud or deceit upon any customer or prospective customer. This prohibition applies, 

inter alia, to the texts of standardized oral presentations. 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(c)(1).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 96 of the Complint.

97. As set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 78, Long Leaf APs made fraudulent 

misrepresentations and omissions to customers and prospective customers about the profitability 

of trading pursuant to recommendations provided by Long Leaf. These misrepresentations and 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:169
27

omissions were set forth in scripts, i.e., standardized oral presentations, which APs delivered to 

customers and prospective customers. The scripts were provided and approved by the principals 

of Long Leaf, Evans and Donelson.

Answer: LLTG realleges its answers to ¶¶ 1 through 78 of the Complaint as though fully 

set forth herein. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 97 of the Complaint that relate to the time period 

prior to January 2, 2018. LLTG affirmatively states that the scripts he approved where reviewed 

and approved by LLTG’s legal counsel. LLTG further denies each and every allegation contained 

in ¶ 97 of the Complaint that alleges wrongdoing by Donelson part.

98. Defendants Long Leaf, Evans, and Donelson therefore engaged in fraudulent 

advertising in violation of 17 C.F.R. § 4.41(a).

Answer: LLTG denies each and every allegation contained in ¶ 98 of the Complaint that 

alleges wrongdoing by Donelson. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 98 of the Complaint

99. Defendant Evans was the founder, CEO, and owner of Long Leaf from at least June 

2015 through December 2017, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or 

indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. 

As such, Evans controlled Long Leaf during that period. Evans did not act in good faith with 

respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long 

Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Evans is liable for Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least June 2015 through 

December 2017, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 99 of the Complaint. 

At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of 

the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 99 of the Complaint. 

100. Defendant Donelson was the CEO of Long Leaf from at least December 2017 

through the present, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or indirectly, the 

power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. As such, 

Donelson controlled Long Leaf during that period. Donelson did not act in good faith with respect 

to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Donelson is liable for Long Leaf’s violations 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:170
28

of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least December 2017 through the 

present, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 100 of the Complaint. 

LLTG denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 100 of the Complaint. 

COUNT IV

Failure to Register as a Commodity Trading Advisor 

Violation of Section 4m(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) 

(2018) (Against Long Leaf, Evans, and Donelson)

101. 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1) requires a person acting as a CTA to register as such with the 

CFTC if the person makes use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce 

in connection with its business as a CTA.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 101 of the Complaint.

102. An IB that guides the majority of customer accounts pursuant to a “trading 

program” is generally required to register as a CTA. Long Leaf was not otherwise exempt from 

registration as a CTA.

Answer: LLTG denies the allegations contained in ¶ 102 of the Complaint as they apply 

to Donelson. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about 

the truth of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 98 of the Complaint that relate to the period

prior to January 1, 2018.

103. Long Leaf guided the majority of its customer accounts through recommendations 

pursuant to the TMM program in the manner set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 78.

Answer: LLTG realleges his answers to ¶¶ 1-78 of the Complaint as though fully alleged 

herein. LLTG further denies that Long Leaf “guided the majority of customer account” and instead 

merely provided recommendations. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:171
29

to form a belief about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 103 of the Complaint that relate to 

the period prior to January 1, 2018.

104. Long Leaf used the instrumentalities of interstate commerce in connection with its 

CTA business, including email, the internet, and the telephone.

Answer: LLTG admits that it “used the instrumentalities of interstate commerce” in the 

conduct of its business. LLTG denies that it conducted any CTA business.

105. Despite these facts, Long Leaf has never been registered as a CTA. Long Leaf 

therefore violated 7 U.S.C. § 6m(1).

Answer: LLTG admits that Long Leaf has never registered as a CTA but denies that it 

was required to register as a CTA.

106. Defendant Evans was the founder, CEO, and owner of Long Leaf from at least 

June 2015 through December 2017, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or 

indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long 

Leaf. As such, Evans controlled Long Leaf during that period. Evans did not act in good faith 

with respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions 

constituting Long Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Evans is liable 

for Long Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least 

June 2015 through December 2017, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 106 of the Complaint. 

At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of 

the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 106 of the Complaint. 

107. Defendant Donelson was the CEO of Long Leaf from at least December 2017 

through the present, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or indirectly, 

the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. As 

such, Donelson controlled Long Leaf during that period. Donelson did not act in good faith 

with respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions 

constituting Long Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Donelson is 

liable for Long Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of 

at least December 2017 through the present, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 107 of the Complaint. 

LLTG denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 107 of the Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:172
30

COUNT V

Failure to Provide Required Disclosures for Trading Program 

Violation of Regulation 4.31(a) and (b), 17 C.F.R. § 4.31(a), (b) 

(2019), and Regulation 4.36(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.36(d)(1) (2019)

(Against Long Leaf, Evans, and Donelson)

108. 17 C.F.R. § 4.31(a) requires a CTA registered or required to be registered to provide 

each customer or prospective customer with a detailed disclosure statement if the CTA seeks to 

guide the customer’s account pursuant to a systematic program that recommends specific 

transactions, i.e., a “trading program.”

Answer: To the extent that the allegations contained in ¶ 108 of the Complaint differ from 

17 C.F.R. § 4.31(a), LLTG denies such allegations contained in ¶ 108 of the Complaint. 

109. The required disclosure statement must include certain specific information relating 

to the track record (or lack of a track record) for the program, including:

a. the annual and year-to-date rate of return for the program specified for 

the five most recent calendar years and year-to-date, computed on a 

compounded monthly basis, and with monthly rates of return; and

b. the number of accounts traded pursuant to the offered trading program 

that were opened and closed with a negative net lifetime rate of return as 

of the date the account was closed.

17 C.F.R. § 4.35(a)(1) (2019).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 109 of the Complaint.

110. Before guiding any customer account pursuant to such a trading program, the CTA 

must obtain a signed and dated acknowledgement from the customer that the customer has received 

the disclosure statement. 17 C.F.R. § 4.31(b). The CTA must also provide a copy of the disclosure 

statement to NFA at least three weeks before it plans to offer the trading program to customers or 

prospective customers. 17 C.F.R. § 4.36(d)(1).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 110 of the Complaint.

111. As set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 78, Long Leaf is required to be registered 

as a CTA. Long Leaf nonetheless failed to provide customers or prospective customers with the 

required disclosures or obtain the required acknowledgement. Long Leaf likewise failed to file the 

required disclosure statement with the NFA.

Answer: LLTG realleges its answers to ¶¶ 1-78 of the Complaint as though fully alleged 

herein. At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:173
31

truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 111 of the Complaint that relate to the period prior to January 

1, 2018. LLTG otherwise denies the allegations in ¶ 111 of the Complaint.

112. Long Leaf therefore violated 17 C.F.R. § 4.31(a), (b) and 17 C.F.R. § 4.36(d)(1).

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 111 of the Complaint that relate to the period prior 

to January 1, 2018. LLTG otherwise denies the allegations in ¶ 111 of the Complaint.

113. Defendant Evans was the founder, CEO, and owner of Long Leaf from at least June 

2015 through December 2017, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or 

indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. 

As such, Evans controlled Long Leaf during that period. Evans did not act in good faith with 

respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long 

Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Evans is liable for Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least June 2015 through 

December 2017, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: Long Leaf admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 113 of the 

Complaint. Long Leaf lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth 

of the remaining allegations contained in ¶ 113 of the Complaint. 

114. Defendant Donelson was the CEO of Long Leaf from at least December 2017 

through the present, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or indirectly, the 

power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. As such, 

Donelson controlled Long Leaf during that period. Donelson did not act in good faith with respect 

to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Donelson is liable for Long Leaf’s violations 

of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least December 2017 through the 

present, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 114 of the Complaint. 

LLTG denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 114 of the Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:174
32

COUNT VI

Failure to Register as Associated Persons

Violation of Section 4k(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1) (2018), Regulation 3.12(a), 17 C.F.R.

§ 3.12(a) (2019), and Regulation 33.3(b)(1) and (2), 17 C.F.R. § 33.3(b)(1), (2) (2019)

(Against Long Leaf, Donelson, Evans, and Nelson, Variously)

115. 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1) provides that it shall be unlawful for a person to be associated with 

an IB as a partner, officer, employee, or agent (or any person occupying a similar status or 

performing similar functions), in any capacity that involves: (a) the solicitation or acceptance of 

customers’ orders; or (b) the supervision of any person or persons so engaged, unless such person 

is registered with the Commission as an AP of such IB. Moreover, it shall be unlawful for an IB 

to permit such a person to become or remain associated with the IB in any such capacity if the IB 

knew or should have known that such person was not so registered.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 115 of the Complaint.

116. 17 C.F.R. § 3.12(a) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to be associated 

with an IB as an AP unless that person shall have registered with the Commission as an AP of that 

IB.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 116 of the Complaint.

117. 17 C.F.R. § 33.3(b)(1) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or 

accept orders from an option customer (other than in a clerical capacity) for any commodity option 

transaction, or to supervise any person or persons so engaged, unless such person is registered as 

an AP of an IB.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 117 of the Complaint.

118. 17 C.F.R. § 33.3(b)(2) provides that it shall be unlawful for any person registered 

or required to be registered as an IB to permit another person to become or remain associated with 

such person as a partner, officer, employee, agent or representative (or in any status or position 

involving similar functions) in any capacity involving the solicitation or acceptance of an order 

from an option customer (other than in a clerical capacity) for any commodity option transaction, 

or the supervision of any person or persons so engaged, if such person knows or should have 

known that such other person is or was not registered as an AP.

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations contained in ¶ 118 of the Complaint.

119. Defendant Nelson worked as an AP for Long Leaf from September 2017 through 

at least July 2018. During that period, Nelson solicited customers for participation in the TMM 

program, advised clients of recommendations, and accepted customer orders for options on futures 

contracts. Nelson was not at that time, and has never been, registered with the Commission as an 

AP of Long Leaf, or in any other capacity. Nelson therefore acted in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1), 

17 C.F.R. § 3.12(a), and 17 C.F.R. § 33.3(b)(1).

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:175
33

Answer: LLTG denies the allegations contained in ¶ 119 of the Complaint.

120. From December 2017 through the present, Donelson supervised persons

engaged, and was engaged himself, in the solicitation and acceptance of customer orders for 

options on futures contracts. Donelson did not register as an AP of Long Leaf until June 2018. 

Donelson therefore acted in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1), 17 C.F.R. § 3.12(a), and 17 C.F.R. 

§ 33.3(b)(1).

Answer: LLTG admits that he supervised various person but otherwise denies the 

remaining allegations contained in ¶ 120 of the Complaint.

121. Long Leaf, through its principals Evans and Donelson, knew or should have known 

about Nelson’s lack of registration status, which is available to the public online through the 

website of the NFA. Long Leaf nonetheless allowed Nelson to work as an AP, soliciting and 

accepting customer orders for options on futures contracts. Moreover, Long Leaf allowed 

Donelson to act as an AP, and to supervise APs, without registration.

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 121 of the Complaint relating to events that 

occurred prior to January 2, 2018. LLTG otherwise denies the remaining allegations contained in 

¶ 121 of the Complaint.

122. Long Leaf therefore acted in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 6k(1) and 17 C.F.R. § 

33.3(b)(2).

Answer: At this time, LLTG lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

about the truth of the allegations contained in ¶ 122 of the Complaint relating to events that 

occurred prior to January 2, 2018. LLTG otherwise denies the remaining allegations contained in 

¶ 122 of the Complaint.

123. Defendant Evans was the founder, CEO, and owner of Long Leaf from at least June 

2015 through December 2017, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or 

indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. 

As such, Evans controlled Long Leaf during that period. Evans did not act in good faith with 

respect to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long 

Leaf’s violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Evans is liable for Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least June 2015 through 

December 2017, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:176
34

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 123 of the Complaint. 

LLTG denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 123 of the Complaint. 

124. Defendant Donelson was the CEO of Long Leaf from at least December 2017 

through the present, and during that period possessed and exercised, directly or indirectly, the 

power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of Long Leaf. As such, 

Donelson controlled Long Leaf during that period. Donelson did not act in good faith with respect 

to, and knowingly induced, directly or indirectly, the acts and omissions constituting Long Leaf’s 

violations of the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, Donelson is liable for Long Leaf’s violations 

of the Act and Regulations committed during the period of at least December 2017 through the 

present, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b).

Answer: LLTG admits the allegations in the first two sentences of ¶ 124 of the Complaint. 

LLTG denies each and every remaining allegation contained in ¶ 124 of the Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, LLTG prays that an Order be entered dismissing the Complaint, with 

prejudice.

DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY

One of Defendant’s Attorneys

Nicholas P. Iavarone

The Iavarone Law Firm

2516 Waukegan Road, #399

Glenview, Illinois 60025

(312) 637-9466

(800) 417-0580 (fax)

niavarone@iavaronefirm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:177
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Nicholas P. Iavarone, an attorney admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois, declares 

that on September 20, 2020 he caused a copy of the attached Answer of Long Leaf Trading Group, 

Inc. to be served via email to:

(aburden@cftc.gov)

Ashley J. Burden

Senior Trial Attorney/Chicago Regional Office

Division of Enforcement

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

312-596-0693

Nicholas P. Iavarone 

The Iavarone Law Firm, P.C. 

2516 Waukegan Road, #399

Glenview, Illinois 60025

(312) 637-9466

(800) 417-0580 (fax) 

niavarome@iavaronefirm.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 23 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:178