UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

____________________________________ 

MISH INT’L MONETARY INC., : 

on behalf of itself and : 

all others similarly situated, : 

 : Case No. 20-cv-04577 

v. : 

 : Judge Gary Feinerman 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD. : Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

and JOHN DOES 1-100. : 

____________________________________x 

JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT 

PURSUANT TO RULE 26(f) 
1 

Pursuant to the Court’s August 5, 2020 Order (ECF No. 4) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), 

Plaintiff Mish International Monetary Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Mish”), through its undersigned 

counsel, and Defendant Vega Capital London, Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Vega”), through its 

undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this Initial Status Report. The parties initially 

conferred by telephone on September 22, 2020, pursuant to Rule 26(f), and thereafter worked to 

prepare this Initial Status Report. 

A. Nature of the Case 

1. Attorneys of record, and lead trial counsel, for each party are as follows: 

Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendant 

Christopher Lovell (Lead Trial Counsel) 

Christopher M. McGrath 

Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP 

Marvin A. Miller 

Andy Szot 

Miller Law LLC 

Michael P. Kelly (Lead Trial Counsel) 

Amy Graham Doehring 

Joel S. Forman 

Meghan K. Boland 

Akerman LLP 

 

2. The basis for federal jurisdiction over this action includes Section 22 of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. §25, Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §15, 

and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1337. 

3. Plaintiff alleges as follows. Between at least April 20, 2020 and April 21, 2020, 

Defendant Vega and John Does 1-100 (“Defendants”) acted to intentionally manipulate the 

prices of New York Mercantile Exchange (“NYMEX”) West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude 

oil futures contracts in violation of the CEA and the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 et seq. 

(“Sherman Act”). Complaint (ECF No. 1) ¶7. On April 20, 2020, the price of the NYMEX WTI 

crude oil futures contract traded at a negative price for the first time in history and the price of 

the May 2020 WTI futures contract—the contract that traded negative—exhibited a trading range 

of $58.17 a barrel, a 40 standard deviation event. Id. ¶¶1-3. On that same day, April 20, at least 

a dozen traders associated with Defendant Vega worked together to aggressively sell May 2020 

WTI crude oil futures contracts and other related instruments for the purpose of depressing the 

price (including the settlement price) of the May 2020 WTI futures contract. Id. ¶¶8-11. 

Defendant’s aggressive selling so as to register the lowest possible prices for the May 2020 WTI 

futures contract was uneconomic and contrary to standard and rational practice to seek to sell for 

the highest possible price. Id. However, prior to the foregoing aggressive selling on April 20, 

2020, numerous traders associated with Defendant Vega purchased a large volume of Trading at 

Settlement (“TAS”) contracts. Id. These TAS contracts gave Defendant Vega the right to 

purchase May 2020 contracts at a price that would later be determined by the settlement price of 

the May 2020 contract at the close of trading on April 20, 2020. Id. The lower the price of the 

May 2020 contract on April 20, the lower the price that Defendant Vega’s traders were obligated 

to pay to purchase the TAS contracts. Id. On April 20, the price of the May 2020 WTI crude oil 
2 

futures contract settled at a price of negative -$37.63 a barrel. Id. ¶¶1-2. Defendant Vega 

reportedly profited by as much as $500 million on its trading on April 20. Id. ¶12 

Plaintiff has asserted five claims: two claims for manipulation in violation of the CEA, 

one claim for principal-agent liability in violation of the CEA, one claim for aiding and abetting 

liability in violation of the CEA and one claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Id.

¶¶64-86. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: declaratory judgments that Defendants violated the 

CEA and Sherman Act, an order certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, designating Plaintiff as the Class representative and his 

counsel as Class counsel, a judgment awarding Plaintiff and the Class damages against 

Defendants for their violations of the CEA and Sherman Act (including treble damages), 

prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law, an award to Plaintiff and the Class 

for their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and expenses, and such 

other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Id. at 15-16. 

 4. Defendant Vega’s response to the complaint is due on November 27, 2020. 

Defendant intends to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, among other 

reasons. Because it claims that there was “an artifice to defraud,” Plaintiff’s complaint must 

plead its claims with particularity under Rule 9(b). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to do so. Among 

other reasons, it fails to allege who specifically made the allegedly manipulative trades in the 

scheme to defraud; the specific times when these trades were allegedly made; and how these 

specific trades would have affected a market shaped by traders throughout the world during a 

worldwide pandemic and depression, during a time when there was not enough physical storage 

or demand for oil, and at a time when the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) publicly 

announced it was permissible for oil to trade in negative numbers. Defendant anticipates that it 

will develop additional grounds to dismiss the complaint when it files the motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff intends to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss and believes its complaint satisfies the 

pleading standards of Rule 8(a) (which applies here) and also Rule 9(b) (which does not apply). 

 5. Plaintiff believes that the principal legal and factual issues include whether 

Defendants intentionally caused NYMEX WTI crude oil futures prices to be artificial, whether 

Defendant and any of the John Doe Defendants combined, conspired and agreed to manipulate or 

fix NYMEX WTI crude oil futures prices and whether this action may be maintained as a class 

action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 

Defendant believes that the principal legal and factual issues include whether the 

NYMEX WTI crude oil future prices were artificial, whether Defendant had the ability to 

influence prices, whether anyone caused oil futures to be traded at an artificial rate, whether 

Defendant had fraudulent or other improper intent, whether the oil futures market was 

responding to other factors (including a global pandemic, a shortage of space for storage of oil, a 

lack of demand for oil, difficult economic conditions as a result of the pandemic and a 

worldwide shutdown, the effect of the CME announcement that oil futures could be traded in 

negative prices, or any other factors), whether Defendant entered into a contract, combination, or 

conspiracy with anyone, whether trade was restrained as a result of the trading of Defendant or 

any associated traders, whether there were any damages, and whether this action may be 

maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 
3 

 6. Defendant has executed a waiver of the service of summons. ECF No. 9. 

 

B. Proceedings to Date 

 1. No substantive rulings have been made to date. 

 2. There are currently no pending motions. 

C. Discovery and Case Plan 

 1. The parties disagree about when discovery should commence. Plaintiff believes 

discovery may and should commence now as provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, including Rules 26(d)(1)-(2), given that the parties have conferred as required by 

Rule 26(f) and it has been more than 21 days since the summons and complaint were served on 

Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff has issued a Rule 34 document request to Defendant seeking 

production of any documents or other information Defendant may have previously produced to 

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the CME, the NYMEX or other 

regulators. Defendant believes that the Court should stay discovery until it has an opportunity to 

consider Defendant’s forthcoming motion to dismiss under Rule 9(b). Because Defendant 

believes that it is contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery to proceed 

before a party has an opportunity to file a motion to dismiss under Rule 9(b), Defendant believes 

Plaintiff’s request and initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) should be stayed pending the 

Court’s ruling on the forthcoming motion to dismiss. No other formal or informal discovery has 

occurred to date. 

 2. The parties anticipate that discovery will encompass electronically stored 

information (“ESI”). The parties confirmed during the Rule 26(f) conference that they have 

taken steps to preserve ESI relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. 

 3. Plaintiff and Defendant have proposed different schedules for the Court’s 

consideration. The principal difference in the parties’ proposed schedules arises from the 

disagreement as to whether discovery should begin now or after the Court decides the motion to 

dismiss. Both parties agree that there should be a substantial discovery period as each side will 

likely be seeking discovery from participants in the market that day (who will be located all over 

the world), both with respect to class certification and merits issues, and that the case will likely 

require substantial expert testimony. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Schedule Defendant’s Proposed Schedule 

Initial disclosures. The parties exchange 

initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) 

by October 6, 2020. 

Initial disclosures. The parties exchange 

initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) 

within 30 days after the Court decides 

Defendant’s forthcoming motion to dismiss 

(if Plaintiff has stated a claim). 
4 

Motion to dismiss. Defendant moves to 

dismiss the Complaint by November 27, 

2020. Plaintiff files its opposition by January 

26, 2021. Defendant files any reply by 

February 26, 2021. 

Motion to dismiss. Same. 

Class certification. Plaintiff files its motion 

for class certification, including any expert 

reports, 20 months after Defendant begins 

producing documents responsive to Plaintiff’s 

requests for production. Defendant files its 

opposition, including any expert reports, 60 

days after Plaintiff’s class certification 

motion. Plaintiff files its reply, including any 

rebuttal expert reports, 60 days after 

Defendant’s opposition. 

Class certification. Plaintiff files its motion 

for class certification, including any expert 

reports, 20 months following the Court’s 

ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss (if 

applicable). Defendant files its opposition, 

including any expert reports, 60 days after 

Plaintiff’s class certification motion. Plaintiff 

files its reply, including any rebuttal expert 

reports, 60 days after Defendant’s opposition. 

Amended pleadings. The deadline to amend 

the pleadings, including by adding additional 

parties, is 60 days prior to the close of fact 

discovery. 

Amended pleadings. Same 

Completion of fact discovery. Fact discovery 

closes 24 months after Defendant begins 

producing documents responsive to Plaintiff’s 

requests for production. The deadline for 

issuing written discovery requests is 30 days 

prior to the close the fact discovery. 

Completion of fact discovery. Fact discovery 

closes 24 months after the Court rules on the 

motion to dismiss. The deadline for issuing 

written discovery requests is 30 days prior to 

the close the fact discovery. 

Merits expert discovery. Merits expert reports 

to be served 60 days after the completion of 

fact discovery. Responsive merits expert 

reports to be served 60 days after initial 

merits expert reports. Rebuttal expert reports 

to be served 60 days after responsive merits 

expert reports. 

Merits expert discovery. Merits expert reports 

to be served 60 days after the completion of 

fact discovery. Responsive merits expert 

reports to be served 60 days after initial 

merits expert reports. Rebuttal expert reports 

to be served 60 days after responsive merits 

expert reports. 

Summary judgment. Summary judgment 

motions to be filed 60 days after the 

completion of merits expert discovery. 

Oppositions to summary judgment motions to 

be filed 60 days after summary judgment 

motions. Replies in support of summary 

judgment to be filed 45 days after oppositions 

to summary judgment. 

Summary judgment. Summary judgment 

motions to be filed 60 days after the 

completion of merits expert discovery. 

Oppositions to summary judgment motions to 

be filed 60 days after summary judgment 

motions. Replies in support of summary 

judgment to be filed 45 days after oppositions 

to summary judgment. 
5 

 4. Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury. Complaint, p. 16. 

 5. The parties estimate that a jury trial would take approximately 2-4 weeks. 

D. Settlement 

 1. The parties discussed the issue of settlement, as required by Rule 26(f). However, 

the parties do not currently believe pursuing settlement at this early stage would be fruitful. 

 2. The parties do not request a settlement conference. 

E. Magistrate Judge 

 1. The parties do not consent to proceed before a magistrate judge for all purposes. 

 2. No matters have been referred to a magistrate judge. 

F. Additional Issues 

 1. The parties discussed the following additional topics in connection with the Rule 

26(f) conference. Plaintiff has undertaken to prepare a proposed protective order, which will 

address privilege and waiver issues, and a proposed protocol for the collection and production of 

ESI. Plaintiff has also undertaken to prepare a proposed order and stipulation concerning certain 

limitations on expert discovery. The parties also discussed that each side anticipates needing 

more than 10 depositions. Accordingly, absent a stipulation, the parties reserve the right to move 

the Court at a later date (if necessary) for leave to take depositions beyond the ten (10) 

depositions permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a). 

Dated: October 2, 2020 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Marvin A. Miller 

Marvin A. Miller 

Miller Law LLC 

115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

312.332.3400 

mmiller@millerlawllc.com 

Christopher Lovell 

Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP 

500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440 

New York, New York 10110 

212-608-1900 

clovell@lshllp.com 

/s/ Amy Graham Doehring 

Amy Graham Doehring 

Akerman LLP 

71 S. Wacker Drive, 47th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 634-5700 

amy.doehring@akerman.com 

 

Michael P. Kelly 

Akerman LLP 

750 Ninth Street, N.W., Suite 750 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 393-6222 

michael.kelly@akerman.com 
6 

Counsel for Plaintiff Mish International 

Monetary Inc. Joel S. Forman 

Meghan K. Boland 

Akerman LLP 

520 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

(212) 880-3800 

joel.forman@akerman.com 

meghan.boland@akerman.com 

Counsel for Defendant Vega Capital London, 

Ltd.