UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MISH INTERNATIONAL 

MONETARY INC., on behalf of itself 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et 

al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-04577 

Hon. Gary S. Feinerman 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

ANSWER AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES OF PAUL COMMINS TO 

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 

Defendant Paul Commins, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby 

answers the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint as follows. To the extent the 

Complaint’s headings, subheadings, and footnotes constitute allegations to which a 

response is required, Mr. Commins denies all such allegations. Mr. Commins 

answers on his behalf only. 

Pursuant to this Court’s Order (dated March 31, 2022, Dot. No. 117) 

(“Order”), Plaintiff complains1 of Defendants (including in the new allegations 

made at paragraphs 37, 55, 57, 209-333 pursuant to the Order) as follows: 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that the Plaintiff complains as set forth in 

the paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint, including the new allegations 

made at paragraphs 37, 55, 57, 209-333. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in the Introductory Paragraph of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 

1. From at least as early as April 2020, the Vega Defendants2 combined, 

conspired, and agreed to depress on April 20, 2020 prices of the May 2020 West 

1

 Plaintiff complains based on personal knowledge as to ¶29 and information and belief as to all 

other paragraphs. Plaintiffs’ information includes CME records, Vega records produced to the 

CME, news articles, the materials referenced and alleged in this Complaint, and the investigation 

of counsel. 

2

 As used in this complaint, the “Vega Defendants” means VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., 

Adrian Spires, Paul Commins, George Commins, Christopher Roase, Elliott Pickering, Aristos 

Demetriou, Connor Younger, , James Biagioni, Henry Lunn, , Paul 

Sutton, Matthew Rhys Thompson, and Vega Defendant John Does 1-4. 
 2 

Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) Light Sweet Crude Oil futures contract (“May 

Contract”) which is traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) Globex 

platform. See ¶¶ 30-59 (specifying the Vega Defendants). 

Answer: Paragraph 1 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 1 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

2. Though not a necessary condition to the manipulation of a futures 

contract price, each of the following steps is a sufficient condition to manipulate a 

futures contract price. 

a. A combination of market participants exerts significant cumulative net 

selling pressure on a futures contract over a specific time period. Cumulative net 

selling pressure means a market participant’s sales of a futures contract minus their 

purchases of such futures contract during a specified time period. See ¶ 129 below. 

Here, Defendants agreed to and did abuse the Trade at Settlement (“TAS”) feature 

of the May Contract to build up their cumulative net selling pressure on the May 

Contract.3 See ¶129. 

3

 As recently stated by Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) Commissioner Dan 

Berkovitz on November 24, 2020: “The potential for TAS trading to artificially affect the 

settlement price of a contract is well known; indeed, the CFTC has brought two enforcement 

cases based on the use of TAS to manipulate the price of futures contracts.” See 

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/berkovitzstatement112320a. 

Commissioner Berkovitz also expressed his view that the CFTC should look into the TAS 
 3 

b. A market participant uses their sales in a futures contract as 

manipulative “ammo”. See ¶ 103. “Ammo” has been recognized by the United 

States CFTC and the United Kingdom Financial Control Authority (“FCA”) as a 

term used by manipulators. See ¶¶104-105; and fn. 5-6. The term “ammo” signifies 

possession of the ability to make a quantity of transactions in a manner in which 

the transactions will depress or inflate futures contract prices. See ¶¶ 103-105. 

Here, Defendants Thompson and Lunn c 

 

 

 

 Elliot Pickering 

 

[Emphasis added]. Based upon the Vega Trading Defendants’ actual conduct, 

Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that Defendants agreed to and 

did use their sales as manipulative “ammo” to depress May Contract prices from 

trading activity in its investigation of the precipitous drop and rebound of WTI oil trading prices 

on April 20-21. 
 4 

approximately 12 pm on April 20 through the TAS settlement of the May Contract 

by 1:30 pm on that day. See ¶145(c)-(e) below. 

c. A market participant is responsible for an increasing share of the net 

sales made by the entire market, including at times when the market participant 

already has exerted substantial cumulative net selling pressure on such futures 

contract. Here, after Defendants had built up substantial net selling pressure on the 

May Contract, Defendants engaged in a frenzy of selling which greatly increased 

their sales per minute and caused their percentage of the entire market’s sales to 

exceed 30% in this worldwide market. See ¶ 145. 

d. A market participant builds up a significant cumulative net 

“aggressive” sales pressure on a futures contract over a specified time. See ¶ 146-

164 (alleging the CME’s definition of “aggressive” transactions and Defendants’ 

buildup of their significant cumulative net aggressive sales pressure). 

Answer: Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins responds as follows: To the extent 

Paragraph 2 refers to trade data or written discovery materials, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 5 

3. Although any one of the above steps would have sufficed to 

manipulatively depress prices, Defendants agreed to and did engage in all of the 

foregoing types of manipulative steps and thereby greatly depressed May Contract 

prices on April 20. 

Answer: Paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

4. Regarding Defendants’ combination and agreement to depress prices, 

the manipulation of an entire market is something that persons can better 

accomplish working in a combination and pursuant to an agreement rather than 

individually. Yet even the broadest agreements and best manipulations entail risks. 

Here, the Vega Trading Defendants each committed their capital to Vega to 

guarantee one another’s losses. Such Defendants effectively acted as co-guarantors 

to Vega of one another’s financial outcomes. This is exactly the type of agreement 

which would facilitate joint efforts to manipulate prices as well as Vega’s 

involvement with such efforts. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 
 6 

5. Also indicating Defendants’ agreement, Defendant Paul Commins, in 

his own words, all but two of the other Vega Trading Defendants. 

Further indicative of an agreement, the five Vega Trading Defendants who build 

up the largest May Contract short positions, did so in a manner that is extremely 

highly correlated on a minute-by-minute basis with one another as well as with 

Defendant Paul Commins’ buildup of his May Contract short position. See ¶¶142-

43. This is extremely unlikely to happen by independent decision making or freak 

occurrence. It is highly consistent with a very carefully executed agreement to 

build cumulative net selling pressure on the market in a manner which will succeed 

in depressing prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

6. Confirming that these multiple high correlations among many 

Defendants’ May Contract short positions did not result from chance, there was a 

high degree of communications among Vega Trading Defendants on April 20. This 

includes communications in which they coordinate trades (which helps to explain 

the high degree of correlation in the growth of their positions). They also 

communicated to track what one another was doing and make sure they were going 

short May Contracts and long TAS contracts to build up net selling pressure on the 

May Contract. See below. 
 7 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

7. Likewise, when Defendants exulted in the successful outcome of their 

manipulation after the close of trading in the May Contract on April 20, Defendant 

Lunn stated 

. See ¶ 179 below. In fact, the Vega Trading Defendants 

had used the foregoing four means of manipulation (alleged at ¶2 a-d) to 

overwhelm and “blitz” through the limited buying pressure in the May Contract. 

As the Vega Defendants’ cumulative net selling pressure and manipulative ammo 

sales reached their highest levels, Vega caused the May Contract to experience alltime record price declines. See ¶¶136-137. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

8. Defendant George Commins Defendant Paul Commins 

and apparently resides at and definitely trades out of Defendant Paul Commins’ 

residence. Defendant George Commins 

 See 

¶180 below. This further indicates coordination and joint conduct. 
 8 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant George Commins 

 and that Defendant George Commins resided with and traded out of his 

residence on certain occasions. To the extent Paragraph 8 refers to written 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

9. GH Financial is a company located in this District and was the futures 

brokerage firm for Defendant Vega. On April 21, GH Financial informed Vega as 

follows: The trading by Vega in the May Contract on April 20 had set off multiple 

market alert alarms at GH Financial. Accordingly, the futures brokerage firm 

wanted to know whether the Vega persons doing the trading were acting together. 

Similarly, GH Financial wanted to know whether such persons appreciated 

exchange rules about market manipulation. And GH Financial asked numerous 

other questions about specific trades or traders, including relating to attempted 

manipulation. See ¶120 below. Soon after receiving Vega’s responses, GH 

Financial gave notice to Vega that it was dropping Vega as a customer. This notice 

was due to the events which occurred on April 20 and GH Financial’ s concerns 

about the “risks” of continuing to do business with Defendant Vega and the Vega 

Trading Defendants. Id. 
 9 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 9 refers to written discovery materials, 

Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies 

Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge sufficient 

to form a belief about the location of GH Financials and denies the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

10. As a result of Defendants extensive combination to overwhelm and 

depress the May Contract prices on April 20, Defendants proximately caused 

extremely artificial prices in the May Contract. 

Answer: Paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

11. Futures market “spreads” are the difference between the price of a 

futures contract expiring in one month and the price of a futures contract expiring 

in a different month. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

12. Using futures contract spreads is a standard way to analyze whether 

the prices of a futures contract have deviated from supply and demand or are 

artificial in an economic sense of the term. The supply and demand for crude oil 
 10 

was substantially similar and the same on Friday April 17, Monday April 20, and 

Tuesday April 21. Based on a statistical analysis of the spread between the prices 

of the May Contract and the June WTI contract, and using a control period of 

January 2 until April 17, 2020, Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does 

allege as follows. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

13. During trading on April 20, the spread between the May Contract 

price and the June Contract price declined by an extreme amount. In fact, the 

amount of the decline was 138 standard deviations. A computer calculation of the 

probability of this occurring in a competitive market untainted by manipulation 

returns a result of exactly zero. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

14. However, after 1:30 p.m. on April 20, Vega no longer had market 

power over May Contract trading. The May June spread then snapped back and 

increased to (and above) the levels on which such spread had closed on April 17, 

2020. The statistical chance of this occurring in a competitive market is 

extraordinarily small. And the statistical chance that the May June spread, in a 
 11 

competitive market, would decline by so much on April 20 and then snapback so 

much on April 21 is even smaller. 

Answer: The allegation regarding “market power” is a legal conclusion 

to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or may be 

deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegation. Mr. Commins denies 

the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

15. Because there were virtually no changes in supply and demand for 

crude oil between April 17 and April 21, much less dramatic decreases in the 

supply demand balance on April 20 followed by overwhelming increases in the 

supply demand balance on April 21, the fundamentals cannot explain what 

happened to prices here. However, Vega’s four types of manipulative conduct were 

present in the May Contract on April 20 until 1:30 pm and then were removed 

from the May Contract after 1:30 pm on April 20. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

16. Accordingly, the Vega Defendants’ blatantly manipulative “ammo” 

selling and other manipulative steps alleged in ¶2 (a)-(d) are the proximate cause of 

the artificially depressed May Contract prices on April 20. 
 12 

Answer: Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 16 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

17. Plaintiff and members of the Class (as defined in ¶210) were directly 

injured by the Vega Defendants’ agreement and conduct. Among other things, 

Plaintiff and Class members were injured in that they sold May crude oil futures 

contracts to liquidate their long positions at artificially low prices. See ¶¶ 218-220 

below. 

Answer: Paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 17 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

18. The CME Group’s global headquarters are located in this District at 

20 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. The May Contracts traded on the 

CME Group’s electronic trading platforms Globex and ClearPort. The CME 

Group’s electronic Globex trading platform is housed approximately thirty-five 

miles from the CME Group’s headquarters in Aurora, Illinois. All May Contract 
 13 

transactions, including Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ May Contract transactions, were 

entered and executed in this District. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that the CME Group’s headquarters is 

located at 20 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606 and that the May 

Contracts traded on the CME Group’s trading platforms. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Second Amended 

Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

19. WTI crude oil is a “commodity” and is the “commodity underlying” 

the WTI crude oil futures contracts traded on the CME Globex, as those terms are 

defined and used in Sections la(4) and 22 of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §§ la(4) and 

25(a)(1)(D), respectively. 

Answer: Paragraph 19 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits only that WTI crude oil 

futures contracts are traded on CME Globex platform. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Second Amended 

Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 
 14 

20. Defendants made use of the means and instrumentalities of 

transportation or communication in, or the instrumentalities of, interstate 

commerce, or of the mails in connection with the unlawful acts and practices and 

courses of business alleged in this complaint. 

Answer: Paragraph 20 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 20 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

21. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 7 

U.S.C. §25, Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §15 and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 

1337. 

Answer: Paragraph 21 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits only that Plaintiff purports to 

base the Court’s jurisdiction on the statutes referenced in Paragraph 21 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and denies the remaining allegations. 

22. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 

Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22. Defendants have minimum contacts 

with the United States, transacting business in this District, including by 

electronically placing trades in NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contracts on the 
 15 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) Globex and CME ClearPort trading 

platforms. 

Answer: Paragraph 22 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits only that he placed trades 

electronically on the CME’s Globex trading platform and that Plaintiff purports to 

base the Court’s jurisdiction on the statutes referenced in Paragraph 22 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 22 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

23. General venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 

7 U.S.C. §25(c), 15 U.S.C. §22 and 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), (c), and (d). 

Answer: Paragraph 23 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits only that Plaintiff purports to 

base its allegation that venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois on the 

statutes referenced in Paragraph 23 of the Second Amended Complaint and denies 

the remaining allegations. 

24. The Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and venue is 

proper pursuant to Section 22 of Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 22. 
 16 

Defendants transact business in this judicial district and the CEA violations 

occurred in this District. 

Answer: Paragraph 24 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits only that Plaintiff purports to 

base the Court’s jurisdiction on the statutes referenced in Paragraph 24 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and denies the remaining allegations. 

25. Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ brokers are located in this District. See 

¶¶27, 67. The price manipulation occurred and the claims arose in this District. 

Also, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims arose in 

this District. 

Answer: Paragraph 25 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations regarding the 

locations of “Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s brokers” and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 

25 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

26.
 17 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that 

 and, therefore, denies the allegation in Paragraph 26 of 

the Second Amended Complaint. 

27.

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

28. The ICE has a colocation data center in this District as well as in 

Mahwah, New Jersey and Basildon, United Kingdom. 

https://www.theice.com/connectivity-and-feeds/icecolocation

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 28 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 
 18 

allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

PARTIES 

A. Plaintiff 

29. Plaintiff Mish International Monetary, Inc. is a California corporation 

with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. On the afternoon of 

April 20, 2020, Plaintiff Mish sold, through his brokers located in this District, ten 

(10) May Contracts at negative prices in order to liquidate a long position in such 

contract. Plaintiff Mish incurred a net loss of approximately $92,490 in connection 

with the foregoing transactions executed in this District. Plaintiff sold at the 

artificially low May Contract prices registered which occurred in this District due 

to Defendants’ manipulative impact on the trading executed and the order book 

maintained for May Contracts in this District. As alleged hereafter, Plaintiff is 

entitled to recover damages from Defendants, including actual damages, treble 

damages and other relief. 

Answer: Paragraph 29 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations regarding 
 19 

Plaintiff’s trading and, therefore, denies those allegations. Mr. Commins denies 

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

B. Defendants 

30. Defendant Vega Capital London, Ltd. (“Vega”) is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, incorporated on 

May 13, 2016, with a registered office in Essex, England and a principal place of 

business in London, England. Defendant Vega maintained a trading account with 

United States Futures Commissions Merchant (“FCM”) G.H. Financial LLC. See 

¶¶ 248, 263 below. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Vega Capital London, Ltd. is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom 

incorporated on May 13, 2016. Mr. Commins further admits that Vega Capital 

London, Ltd.’s registered office is in Essex, England, and that its principal place of 

business is London, England. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 30 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

31. In its trading account with GH Financial, Vega maintained multiple 

accounts and scores of sub-accounts. Part of these sub-accounts, those in , 
 20 

contained the accounts of the Vega Trading Defendants, whose names are alleged 

in ¶39 below, except for Defendant , whose account was in 

. But the Vega Trading Defendants did not have accounts with GH Financial and 

GH Financials’ only customer was Vega. Defendant Vega’s accounts included a 

master account . 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

32. All of the Vega Trading Defendants entered their orders and made 

their trades (of which Plaintiff is so far aware in the May Contract) with GH 

Financial in the name of and through Defendant Vega. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

33. On October 26, 2017, Defendant Vega registered with the FCA as an 

Appointed Representative of Starmark Investment Management Limited 

(“Starmark”). Defendant Vega terminated its registration with the FCA on August 

13, 2019. 
 21 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

34. Currently, Vega is wholly owned by Defendant Adrian William Spires 

(see ¶34 below). As of Vega’s incorporation on May 13, 2016, Anthony Gibson 

was its sole shareholder. On July 1, 2017, Dean George Scott acquired all 

outstanding shares from Mr. Gibson. On September 26, 2017, Adrian Spires and 

Tommy Gaunt each acquired half of Mr. Scott’s shares, so that they co-owned the 

company equally. On October 23, 2019, after Defendant Vega had de-registered 

with the FCA, Defendant Spires acquired all of Mr. Gaunt’s shares. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

35. According to its filings with the UK’s Companies House, Defendant 

Vega had zero employees in 2017, 3 employees in 2018 and 7 in 2019. Vega states 

on its website and has stated for years that the website is “currently in 

development”. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 35 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 
 22 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

36.

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he partly owned 

 and that Mr. Commins 

 with Defendant Vega. To the extent Paragraph 36 refers to written 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. With respect to the allegations 

in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 36, Mr. Commins admits that 

. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 36 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 23 

37. Defendant Vega describes the individual trading defendants, whose 

names are alleged below, as of Vega. However, the 

relationship between and among Vega, , and the Vega Trading Defendants is 

alleged in detail at ¶¶209-261 below. 

Answer: Paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins incorporates by reference his 

Answers to Paragraphs 209-261. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 37 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

38. Defendant Adrian Spires is a natural person residing in the UK. 

Defendant Adrian Spires is Defendant Vega’s sole shareholder, sole owner and 

sole director. Prior to Vega’s de-registration with the FCA on August 13, 2019, 

Defendant Spires was registered with the FCA to provide financial services to the 

public as an appointed representative of both Starmark and Vega. Defendant Spires 

is still registered with the FCA as a representative of Starmark. The Vega Trading 

Defendants are Defendants Paul Commins, George Commins, Aristos Demetriou, 

Henry Lunn, Elliott Pickering, Christopher Roase, , Paul Sutton, 

Matthew Thompson, Connor Younger, , and Michael Biagioni. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits only that Adrian Spires is a natural person 

and that the Plaintiff has listed the parties named as Defendants in this action 
 24 

except for and because their claims are dismissed. Mr. 

Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

39. Defendant Paul Commins is a natural person residing 

 Mr. Commins is registered with the FCA to provide financial 

services to the public as an appointed representative of Starmark. Defendant Paul 

Commins maintained an account with Defendant Vega. Defendant Paul Commins 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he is a natural person who resided in 

. Mr. Commins further admits that he was registered with the FCA 

as an appointed representative of Starmark and maintained a trading account with 

Vega Capital London, Ltd. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 39 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

40. Defendant Paul Commins 

 In Defendant Paul 

Commins’ 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits only that he knows the other named Vega 

Trading Defendants. To the extent Paragraph 40 refers to written discovery 
 25 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

41. Defendant Paul Commins coordinated and worked with the other 

Vega Trading Defendants to depress the prices of the May Contract on April 20. 

(a) Defendant Paul Commins’ minute to minute pattern in his May Contract 

short position on April 20 is almost identical to and holds an extremely high 

correlation with the patterns in which Defendants Younger, Pickering, Demetriou, 

and Roase added to their May Contract short positions on April 20. See ¶¶45, 47, 

49, 51 (identifying Defendants Younger, Pickering, Demetriou and Roase) and 

¶143 (alleging the correlations). Such high correlations with one trader, much less 

many traders, have an extremely low likelihood of occurring by chance or from 

randomly independent trading decisions. 

(b) Defendant Paul Commins exploited the TAS device to place selling 

pressure in the May Contract to net sell a total of May Contracts and avoid 

placing offsetting purchase pressure in the May Contract by purchasing TAS 

contracts on April 20. 

(c) Defendant Paul Commins sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 
 26 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 41 refers to trading data or other 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

42. Defendant George Commins Defendant Paul Commins 

and also maintained an account with Defendant Vega. Defendant George Commins 

resides at, and traded on April 20, 2020 

 Defendant George Commins also maintained an account with Vega, is 

also registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and also 

is a member of 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant George Commins 

, that Defendant George Commins maintained an account with Defendant 

Vega, and that Defendant George Commins traded out of his residence on April 

20, 2020. Mr. Commins further admits that Defendant George Commins was 

registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 
 27 

43. Defendant George Commins worked with other Vega Defendants to 

depress the prices of the May Contract on April 20. Among other things, 

Defendant George Commins communicated with other Vega Defendants about the 

May Contract put selling pressure into the May Contract on April 20 by net selling 

 May Contracts, and avoided putting offsetting buying pressure into the May 

Contract by net purchasing TAS contracts. Defendant George Commins sold a 

large portion of his May Contracts in an aggressive manner and used his May 

Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, including during the last hour of trading. 

See ¶¶ 111, 164 below. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 43 refers to trading data or other 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

in Paragraph 43 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

44. Defendant Connor Grant Younger is the son of a friend of Defendant 

Paul Commins. Defendant Younger is a natural person residing 

 Defendant Younger also maintained an account with Vega, 
 28 

is also registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and 

also is a member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant Connor Grant Younger is 

a natural person, that Defendant Younger maintained an account with Defendant 

Vega, and that Defendant Younger was registered with the FCA as an authorized 

representative of Starmark. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

45. (a) Defendant Connor Younger’s minute to the minute pattern of 

adding to his May Contract short position on April 20 is almost identical to and 

holds an extremely high correlation with the patterns in which Defendants Paul 

Commins, Pickering, Demetriou, and Roase added to their May Contract short 

positions on April 20. See ¶143 (identifying Defendants Paul Commins, Pickering, 

Demetriou and Roase) and ¶143 (alleging the .919 correlation to Defendant 

Commins’ trades). Such high correlations with one trader, much less many traders, 

have an extremely low likelihood of occurring by chance or from randomly 

independent trading decisions. 

(b) Defendant Younger exploited the TAS device to place selling pressure in 

the May Contract to net sell a total of May Contracts and avoid placing 
 29 

offsetting purchase pressure in the May Contract by net purchasing TAS 

contracts on April 20. 

(c) Defendant Younger sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 45 refers to trading data or other 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

in Paragraph 45 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

46. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

 Chris Roase 

 Defendant 

Demetriou has been a director of an entity called , along 

with Defendant Commins and Defendant Pickering. Additionally, Defendant 

Demetriou co-owned a firm called with Defendant Paul 

Commins. Defendant Demetriou is a natural person residing 

 Defendant Demetriou also maintained an account with Vega, is also 
 30 

registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and also is a 

member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he was a director of 

, that Defendants Pickering and Demetriou were briefly 

directors of , and that he and Defendant Demetriou coowned . Mr. Commins further admits that Mr. Demetriou 

is a natural person, that Mr. Demetriou maintained an account with Vega, and that 

Mr. Demetriou was registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of 

Starmark. To the extent Paragraph 46 refers to discovery material or publicly 

available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

remaining allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

47. (a) Defendant Demetriou’s minute to the minute pattern of adding to 

his May Contract short position on April 20 is almost identical to and holds an 

extremely high correlation with the patterns in which Defendants Paul Commins, 

Pickering, Younger, and Roase added to their May Contract short positions on 

April 20. See ¶142 (identifying Defendants Paul Commins, Pickering, Younger 

and Roase) and ¶143 (alleging the .974 correlation to Defendant Commins’ trades). 
 31 

Such high correlations with one trader, much less many traders, have an extremely 

low likelihood of occurring by chance or from randomly independent trading 

decisions. 

(b) Defendant Demetriou exploited the TAS device to place selling pressure 

in the May Contract to sell a total of May Contracts and avoid placing 

offsetting purchase pressure in the May Contract by purchasing TAS 

contracts on April 20. 

(c) Defendant Demetriou sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 47 refers to trading data or other 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

in Paragraph 47 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

48. Defendant Elliott Edward Clark Pickering has been a director of an 

entity called , along with Defendant Commins and 

Defendant Demetriou. Defendant Pickering is a natural person residing 
 32 

 Defendant Pickering also 

maintained an account with Vega, is also registered with the FCA as an authorized 

representative of Starmark, and also is a member of Defendant Paul Commins 

trading team. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he was a director of 

, along with Defendants Pickering and Demetriou. Mr. 

Commins further admits that Defendant Elliott Edward Clark Pickering is a natural 

person, that Defendant Pickering maintained an account with Defendant Vega, and 

that Defendant Pickering was registered with the FCA as an authorized 

representative of Starmark. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 48 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

49. (a) Defendant Pickering’s minute to the minute pattern of adding to 

his May Contract short position on April 20 is almost identical to and holds an 

extremely high correlation with the patterns in which Defendants Paul Commins, 

Demetriou, Younger, and Roase added to their May Contract short positions on 

April 20. See ¶142 (identifying Defendants Paul Commins, Demetriou, Younger 

and Roase) and ¶143 (alleging the .940 correlation to Defendant Commins’ trades). 

Such high correlations with one trader, much less many traders, have an extremely 
 33 

low likelihood of occurring by chance or from randomly independent trading 

decisions. 

(b) Defendant Pickering exploited the TAS device to place selling pressure 

in the May Contract to net sell a total of May Contracts and avoid placing 

offsetting purchase pressure in the May Contract by net purchasing TAS 

contracts on April 20. 

(c) Defendant Pickering sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 49 refers to trading data or other 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

in Paragraph 49 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

50. Defendant Christopher Roase 

 Defendant Commins . Defendant Roase is a 

natural person residing 

 Defendant Roase also maintained an account 
 34 

with Vega, is also registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of 

Starmark, and also is a member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant Christopher Roase is a 

natural person, that Mr. Roase was previously a trader operating at the 

International Petroleum Exchange, that Mr. Roase maintained an account with 

Defendant Vega, and that Mr. Roase was registered with the FCA as an authorized 

representative of Starmark. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

51. (a) Defendant Roase’s minute to the minute pattern of adding to his 

May Contract short position on April 20 is almost identical to and holds an 

extremely high correlation with the patterns in which Defendants Paul Commins, 

Pickering, Younger, and Demetriou added to their May Contract short positions on 

April 20. See ¶142 (identifying Defendants Paul Commins, Pickering, Younger 

and Demetriou) and ¶143 (alleging the .976 correlation to Defendant Commins’ 

trades). Such high correlations with one trader, much less many traders, have an 

extremely low likelihood of occurring by chance or randomly independent trading 

decisions. 
 35 

(b) Defendant Roase exploited the TAS device to place selling pressure in 

the May Contract to sell a total of May Contracts and avoid placing 

offsetting purchase pressure in the May Contract by purchasing TAS 

contracts on April 20. 

(c) Defendant Roase sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 51 refers to trading data or other 

discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

in Paragraph 51 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

52. Defendant Henry Lunn is a natural person residing 

 Defendant Lunn also maintained an account with Vega, is also 

registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and also is a 

member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. 

(a) Defendant Lunn’s minute to the minute pattern of adding to his May 

Contract short position on April 20 is almost identical to and holds an extremely 
 36 

high correlation with the patterns in which Defendants Paul Commins, Pickering, 

Younger, Roase, and Demetriou added to their May Contract short positions on 

April 20. See ¶142 (identifying Defendants Paul Commins, Pickering, Younger, 

Roase and Demetriou) and ¶143 (alleging the .946 correlation to Defendant 

Commins’ trades). Such high correlations with one trader, much less many traders, 

have an extremely low likelihood of occurring by chance or randomly independent 

trading decisions. 

(b) Defendant Lunn exploited the TAS device to place selling pressure in the 

May Contract by net selling May Contracts and avoid placing offsetting 

purchase pressure in the May Contract by net purchasing TAS contracts on 

April 20. 

(c) Defendant Lunn sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant Henry Lunn is a natural 

person, that Defendant Lunn maintained an account with Defendant Vega, and that 

Defendant Lunn was registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of 

Starmark. To the extent Paragraph 52 refers to trading data or other discovery 

material, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 
 37 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

53. The five largest Vega traders accounted for 69% of the total Vega 

volume, and their minute by minute positions have extremely strong correlations 

(between 96.2% and 99.7%) with each other. 

a. Younger’s sales of May Contracts on April 20 were the largest sales 

of any Vega defendant on April 20. Younger’s minute by minute 

positions in the May Contract had an extremely strong tendency 

(between .962 and .996) to increase as to the other largest Vega 

Traders on April 20 (Roase, Lunn, Demetriou, and Pickering). 

b. Pickering’s sales of May Contracts on April 20 were the second 

largest sales of any Vega defendant on April 20. Pickering’s minute 

by minute positions in the May Contract had an extremely strong 

tendency (between .973 and .996) to increase as to the other largest 

Vega Traders on April 20 (Roase, Lunn, Younger, and Demetriou). 

c. Demetriou’s sales of May Contracts on April 20 were the third largest 

sales of any Vega defendant on April 20. Demetrious minute by 

minute positions in the May Contract had an extremely strong 
 38 

tendency (between .977 and .997) to increase as to the other largest 

Vega Traders on April 20 (Roase, Lunn, Younger, and Pickering). 

d. Roase’s sales of May Contracts on April 20 were the fifth largest sales 

of any Vega defendant on April 20. Roase’s minute by minute 

positions in the May Contract had an extremely strong tendency 

(between .962 and .997) to increase as to the other largest Vega 

Traders on April 20 (Demetriou, Lunn, Younger, and Pickering). 

e. Lunn’s sales of May Contracts on April 20 were the fourth largest 

sales of any Vega defendant on April 20. Lunn’s minute by minute 

positions in the May Contract had an extremely strong tendency 

(between .981 and .993) to increase as to the other largest Vega 

Traders on April 20 (Roase, Demetriou, Younger, and Pickering). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 53 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

54. Defendant Matthew Rhys Thompson is a natural person residing 
 39 

 Defendant Thompson also maintained an account with Vega, is also 

registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and also is a 

member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. 

(a) Defendant Thompson’s minute to the minute pattern of adding to his 

May Contract short position on April 20 is almost identical to and holds an 

extremely high correlation (.979) with the patterns in which Defendants Paul 

Commins, Pickering, Younger, Roase, Lunn and Demetriou added to their May 

Contract short positions on April 20. See ¶¶ 142-143. Such high correlations with 

one trader, much less many traders, have an extremely low likelihood of occurring 

by chance or randomly independent trading decisions. 

(b) Defendant Thompson exploited the TAS device to place selling pressure 

in the May Contract by selling May Contracts and avoid placing offsetting 

purchase pressure in the May Contract by purchasing TAS contracts on April 

20. 

(c) Defendant Thompson sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an 

aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant Matthew Rhys Thompson 

is a natural person, that Defendant Thompson maintained an account with 

Defendant Vega, and that Defendant Thompson was registered with the FCA as an 
 40 

authorized representative of Starmark. To the extent Paragraph 54 refers to trading 

data or other discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak 

for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

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

of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Second Amended Complaint 

and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

55. Defendant is a natural person 

residing 

 Defendant also maintained an 

account with Vega, completed compliance oversight training with Starmark to 

qualify as and later registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of 

Starmark, and also is a member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. 

Defendant worked with other Vega Defendants to depress the prices of the 

May Contract on April 20. Among other things, Defendant communicated 

with other Vega Defendants about the May Contract, put selling pressure into the 

May Contract on April 20 by net selling May Contracts, and avoided putting 

offsetting buying pressure into the May Contract by purchasing TAS contracts. 

Defendant sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an aggressive 

manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, including during 

the last hour of trading. See ¶¶139, 145 below. 
 41 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 55 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins answers as follows. Mr. Commins admits 

only that Defendant is a natural person. To the 

extent Paragraph 55 refers to trading data or other discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 55 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

56. Defendant Paul William Sutton is a natural person residing 

 Defendant Sutton also maintained an account with Vega, is also 

registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and also is a 

member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. Defendant Sutton worked with 

other Vega Defendants to depress the prices of the May Contract on April 20. 

Among other things, Defendant Sutton communicated with other Vega Defendants 

about the May Contract, put selling pressure into the May Contract on April 20 by 

net selling May Contracts, and avoided putting offsetting buying pressure into 

the May Contract by purchasing TAS contracts. Defendant Sutton sold a large 
 42 

portion of his May Contracts in an aggressive manner and used his May Contracts 

as “ammo” during April 20, including during the last hour of trading. See ¶¶139, 

145 below. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant Paul William Sutton is a 

natural person, that Defendant Sutton maintained an account with Defendant Vega, 

and that Defendant Sutton was registered with the FCA as an authorized 

representative of Starmark. To the extent Paragraph 56 refers to trading data or 

other discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

remaining allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

57. Defendant is a natural person residing in the 

. Defendant also maintained an account with Vega, completed 

compliance oversight training with Starmark to qualify as an authorized 

representative of Starmark, and also is a member of Defendant Paul Commins’ 

trading team. Defendant worked with other Vega Defendants to depress the 

prices of the May Contract on April 20. Among other things, Defendant 

communicated with other Vega Defendants about the May Contract, put selling 
 43 

pressure into the May Contract on April 20 by net selling May Contracts, and 

avoided putting offsetting buying pressure into the May Contract by purchasing 

 TAS contracts. Defendant sold a large portion of his May Contracts in 

an aggressive manner and used his May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, 

including during the last hour of trading. See ¶¶139, 145 below. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 57 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins answers as follows. Mr. Commins admits 

only that Defendant is a natural person. To the extent Paragraph 57 

refers to trading data or other discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

58. Defendant James Michael Biagioni is a natural person residing 

 Defendant Biagioni also maintained an account with Vega, is also 

registered with the FCA as an authorized representative of Starmark, and also is a 

member of Defendant Paul Commins trading team. Defendant Biagioni worked 

with other Vega Defendants to depress the prices of the May Contract on April 20. 
 44 

Among other things, Defendant Biagioni communicated with other Vega 

Defendants about the May Contract, put selling pressure into the May Contract on 

April 20 by net selling May Contract, and avoided putting offsetting buying 

pressure into the May Contract by purchasing TAS contract. Defendant Biagioni 

sold a large portion of his May Contracts in an aggressive manner and used his 

May Contracts as “ammo” during April 20, including during the last hour of 

trading. See ¶¶139, 145 below. Defendant Biagioni made price moving trades 

for Defendant Sutton between 13:31:21 and 13:31:24. These trades were 

transferred to Defendant Sutton after Defendant Biagioni made them. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Defendant James Michael Biagioni is 

a natural person, that Defendant Biagioni maintained an account with Defendant 

Vega, and that Defendant Biagioni was registered with the FCA as an authorized 

representative of Starmark. To the extent Paragraph 58 refers to trading data or 

other discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

59. Starmark Investment Management Limited is a private limited 

company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, formed on 
 45 

June 3, 1998, and having a registered office and principal place of business in 

London, England. Starmark has a supervisory role over Defendant Vega Capital 

that initiated with the latter’s FCA registration as an Appointed Representative of 

Starmark, its Principal, from October 26, 2017 through August 13, 2019, the day 

Vega Capital’s FCA registration terminated. Vega has a supervisory role of 

Defendant Spires who is a representative of Starmark. 

Answer: Paragraph 59 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 59 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

60. Eldon John Kerr, Starmark’s co-founder, “currently focuses on 

monitoring Appointed Representative and CF30 trading activity,” according to 

Starmark’s website. As such, Mr. Kerr would have supervised Vega Capital in its 

role as Starmark’s Appointed Representative until August 13, 2019. Despite the 

termination of Vega Capital’s FCA registration as an Appointed Representative of 

Starmark on such date, Mr. Kerr’s inclusion by GH Financials on April 21, 2020 

correspondence with Vega Capital regarding the previous day’s trading 
 46 

irregularities suggests that Starmark’s supervisory role over Defendant Spires or 

Defendant Vega’s trading activities persists. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 60 refers to written discovery materials 

or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak 

for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

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

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of the Second Amended Complaint 

and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

61. In addition to its supervisory role over Defendant Vega, Starmark also 

directly supervises Defendants James Biagioni, Paul Commins, Aristos Demetriou, 

Henry Lunn, Elliott Pickering, Christopher Roase, Adrian Spires, Paul Sutton, 

Matthew Thompson and Connor Younger, all of whom are registered with the 

FCA as Starmark representatives. 

Answer: Paragraph 61 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 61 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 47 

62. (a) Vega John Doe #1. Unknown Vega Defendant is one of the Vega 

accounts. This Defendant financially benefited from the manipulation of the May 

Contract by Defendant Vega and the Vega Trading Defendants. 

(b) Vega John Doe #2. Unknown Vega Defendant is one of the Vega 

accounts. This Defendant financially benefited from the manipulation of the May 

Contract by Defendant Vega and the Vega Trading Defendants. 

(c) Vega John Doe #3. Unknown Vega Defendant is one of the Vega 

accounts. This Defendant financially benefited from the manipulation of the May 

Contract by Defendant Vega and the Vega Trading Defendants. 

(d) Vega John Doe #4. Unknown Vega Defendant is one of the Vega 

accounts. This Defendant financially benefited from the manipulation of the May 

Contract by Defendant Vega and the Vega Trading Defendants. 

Answer: Paragraph 62 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 62 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 48 

63. John Doe Defendants 20-100 are persons or entities who worked with 

Defendants or on whose behalf Defendant Vega Capital worked to manipulate and 

fix prices of NYMEX crude oil futures contracts. 

Answer: Paragraph 63 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 63 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

64. G.H. Financials, LLC (“GHF LLC” or “GHF”) has been a Delaware 

corporation since May 31, 2011. GHF became operational as a clearing Futures 

Commission Merchant the same year. An FCM is a futures broker. As such, it 

solicits or accepts orders to buy or sell futures contracts, and accepts money or 

other assets from customers to support such orders. GHF was Defendant Vega’s 

broker until shortly after April 20, 2020 and made, as Vega’s agent the sales on the 

May Contract. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 64 refers to written discovery materials 

or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak 

for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity 
 49 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of the Second Amended Complaint 

and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

65. GHF LLC is regulated by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) 

which is a Delegated Self-Regulatory Organization (“DSRO”) on behalf of the 

CFTC. 

Answer: Paragraph 65 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 65 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

66. GHF LLC is located at 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1550, Chicago, 

Illinois 60606, and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”). 

GHF LLC also holds memberships on the CME, NYMEX and ICE Futures US. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 66 refers to written discovery materials 

or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak 

for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

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

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the Second Amended Complaint 

and, therefore, denies those allegations. 
 50 

67. GHF acted as the FCM. 

 On April 20, Vega was the customer of GHF which made all the 

manipulative trades alleged herein. GHF was the FCM and exchange member 

which made all those trades. The accounts held by the Vega Trading Defendants 

were sub accounts of the Vega accounts under the designation with 

different sub accounts. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 67 refers to written discovery materials 

or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak 

for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

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

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of the Second Amended Complaint 

and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

68. G.H. Financials Limited is a Private limited Company incorporated on 

January 4, 1993 and registered at Companies House as No. 02775278, with the 

nature of its business defined as security and commodity contract dealing activities 

(SIC 66120) and its registered office located at 29 Ludgate Hill, 4th Floor, London 
 51 

ECAM 7JR (“GHF Ltd”). See: https://find-and-update.companyinformation.service.gov.uk/company/02775278 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 68 refers to written discovery materials 

or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak 

for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

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

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of the Second Amended Complaint 

and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

BACKGROUND 

A. Commodity Futures; How Futures Contract Trading Profits Or 

Losses Are Determined Using The May Contract As An Example. 

69. A person may act as a futures contract exchange or board of trade 

only if that person is approved and designated to do so by the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission. The CFTC approves such a designation only if the proposed 

exchange sufficiently demonstrates (a) that it has rules, such as position limit rules, 

to prevent price manipulation, and (b) that it has procedures to enforce such antimanipulation rules. 

Answer: Paragraph 69 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 
 52 

Paragraph 69 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

70. The NYMEX is designated by the CFTC as a board of trade. NYMEX 

is the world’s largest physical commodity futures exchange. The NYMEX applies 

to the CFTC for permission to trade each commodity in which the NYMEX offers 

a contract. The NYMEX must establish, among other things, that the proposed 

contract is not prone to price manipulation in order to win approval to trade such 

contract. NYMEX members and clearing members have to follow the rules of the 

NYMEX. This includes the most important rules, the rules prohibiting 

manipulation. 

Answer: Paragraph 70 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 70 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

71. Also, commodity futures professionals licensed as associated persons, 

futures commissions merchants, commodity trading advisors, and commodity pool 

operators are required to be familiar with CFTC and exchange requirements. This 

includes the most important requirements, those prohibiting price manipulation. 
 53 

Answer: Paragraph 71 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 71 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

72. A commodity futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell a 

commodity, such as WTI, at a date in the future. Futures contracts are bilateral 

contracts with two sides. The “long” side is the buyer of the contract. The buyer is 

obligated to take delivery and pay for the commodity if the buyer holds the 

contract until the specified delivery dates. Buyers are referred to as “longs.” The 

“short” side of the futures contract is the seller of the contract. The seller is 

obligated to make delivery of the commodity on the delivery dates. Sellers are 

referred to as “shorts.” 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that a commodity futures contract is an 

agreement to buy or sell a commodity at a future date and that the buyer is 

considered the “long” side and the seller the “short” side of the contract. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 72 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 
 54 

73. Almost every aspect of a futures contract is standardized, except the 

price and quantity. Futures markets are specifically designed to facilitate and ease 

trading in one central marketplace for traders who are located throughout the 

United States and the world. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 

of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

74. In practice, very few deliveries occur and most futures contracts are 

satisfied or “liquidated” in the trading market. For example, significantly less than 

I% of all WTI futures contracts traded result in deliveries. Well over 99% of the 

WTI futures contracts which are traded are satisfied through liquidation trading. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 

of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

75. In order to satisfy a futures contract through trading in the futures 

market, a trader who holds a long position of one contract sells one contract. That 

creates one long position and one short position in such futures contract for the 

trader. These offsetting positions cancel out or liquidate the trader’s obligations to 

purchase a commodity and make delivery of a commodity under the contracts. 

Likewise, a trader who holds a short position of one contract buys one contract in 
 55 

order to trade out of the position. This, again, creates one long position and one 

short position for such trader. And this, again, cancels and liquidates the trader’s 

original obligation to deliver the commodity by creating a separate obligation to 

purchase the commodity. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that buying and selling the same futures 

contract can result in offsetting long and short positions. Mr. Commins denies the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 75 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

76. The difference between the price at which a trader buys the contract 

and the price at which the trader sells the contract establishes the profit or loss on 

the contract. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 76 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

77. For example, suppose a trader sold one May Contract to establish a 

short position. Suppose the trader purchased back such May Contract later on the 

same day. Suppose that the sales price was $2.50 per barrel. Suppose that the 

purchase price was minus $37.50 per barrel. In this example, the profit (exclusive 

of trading commissions) would be $40.00 per barrel. Each May Contract consists 

of 1,000 barrels of WTI crude oil. The profit on that one contract (exclusive of 

commissions) would be $40,000.00. 
 56 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the hypothetical allegations contained in 

Paragraph 77 and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

78. Open interest is defined as the total number of futures contracts in a 

delivery month or market that has been entered into and not yet offset or cancelled. 

Each open transaction has a buyer (a long) and a seller (a short). The open interest 

in commodity futures contracts tends to fluctuate from day to day. The open 

interest and trading volumes in a futures contract begin to decrease very 

substantially during the last month of trading in a futures contract. As such contract 

approaches its final expiration date and all trading must cease, the last few days of 

trading the volume and open interest continue to their lowest levels. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

B. The WTI Contract 

79. One of the futures contracts traded on the CME is the light sweet 

crude oil (WTI) futures contract. The size of a WTI crude oil futures contract is 

1,000 barrels. The WTI crude oil futures contracts call for settlement by physical 

delivery at a variety of pipelines or storage facilities in or around Cushing, 

Oklahoma. 
 57 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

80. Pursuant to NYMEX and CME rules, trading is conducted in WTI 

futures contracts expiring in each calendar month from the current month and 

continuing for the next ten calendar years plus two additional contract months. 

Trading in WTI crude oil futures contracts terminates on the third business day 

prior to the twenty-fifth calendar day of the month preceding the delivery month. If 

the twenty-fifth calendar day is not a business day, trading terminates four business 

days prior to the twenty-fifth calendar day of the month prior to the contract 

month. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 80 refers to NYMEX and CME rules or 

other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

81. Daily settlement prices of WTI crude oil futures are settled at the 

volume-weighted average price (“VWAP”) of trades occurring on CME Globex 

between 1:28 and 1:30 p.m. Midwest time. The settlement price for the active 
 58 

month contract is determined by trades in the active month and trades in other 

contract expirations are determined by calendar spread transactions. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 81 refers to NYMEX and CME rules or 

other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 81 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

82. Trading in WTI crude oil futures contracts is subject to the rules and 

regulations of the NYMEX and CME, and prices are quoted in U.S. dollars and 

cents per barrel. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 82 refers to NYMEX and CME rules or 

other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins admits that trading on NYMEX is subject to NYMEX and CME Rules, 

and that prices are quoted in US dollars and cents. 

83. The crude oil marketing hub in Cushing, Oklahoma is the most 

significant marketing and trading hub for crude oil in North America. Cushing 

serves as the delivery point for light sweet crude oil futures contracts traded on the 

CME. 
 59 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 83 refers to NYMEX and CME rules or 

other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 83 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

84. WTI crude oil is one of the most actively traded domestic crude oils, 

operates as the United States benchmark grade and is the primary deliverable grade 

under the WTI crude oil futures contracts. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 84 refers to market data or other 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 84 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

85. Like other commodity futures contracts which call for physical 

delivery, the open interest (see ¶79) and the daily trading volume in a WTI futures 

contract tend to decline dramatically as the last days of trading and the beginning 

of deliveries approach. 
 60 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 85 refers to market data or other 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 85 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

86. In Trading at Settlement (or “TAS”) for WTI contracts, a market 

participant agrees to purchase or sell a WTI futures contract at a price that is to be 

determined by the end of day settlement price of a particular WTI futures contract. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 86 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

87. Trade at Settlement is a capability that allows a commodities trader to 

execute an order to buy or sell an eligible futures contract at the settlement price or 

at a spread to the settlement price. The spread may be at a price up to a specified 

number of ticks (minimum price fluctuations) above or below the settlement price 

for that particular type of commodity contract. See e.g., 

www.theice.com/publicdocs/futures_us/TAS_FAQ.pdf 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 87 refers to NYMEX, CME, and ICE 

rules or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 
 61 

Mr. Commins admits that traders may execute TAS trades at a premium or 

discount to the settlement price but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 

of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

88. Similarly, traders who buy TAS contacts as they sell May Contracts 

have a motive to depress prices in order to make the prices approaching and at the 

end of the day as low as possible. Again, the cost band for TAS contracts is from 

minus ten cents to plus ten cents on the outright contracts, and minus twenty cents 

to plus twenty cents on the spreads. The NYMEX Rulebook provides: “Unless 

otherwise specified by the Exchange, a TAS transaction may be executed at the 

current day’s settlement price or at any valid price increment ten ticks higher or 

lower than the settlement price.” Chapter 5, Section 524.A.3 (TAS Transactions), 

available at: 

https://www.cmegroup.com/content/dam/cmegroup/rulebook/NYMEX/1/5.pdf

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 88 refers to NYMEX, CME, and ICE 

rules or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 88 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 
 62 

89. There are separate bids and offers for TAS contracts than for WTI 

contracts. TAS contracts are bought and sold at a price differential from the daily 

settlement price, so the final price of the TAS contract is the settlement plus or 

minus a premium or discount. The allowable price increments and differential are 

defined by NYMEX. See Interim Staff Report; Trading in NYMEX WTI Crude Oil 

Futures Contract Leading up to, on, and around April 20, 2020 (CFTC Nov. 23, 

2020). In the TAS contract market, the price may range ten ticks higher or lower 

than the settlement price. NYMEX Rule 524. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 89 refers to NYMEX, CME, and ICE 

rules or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins admits that traders may execute TAS trades at a premium or 

discount to the settlement price but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph 89 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

90. TAS contracts may serve valuable functions in physical delivery 

markets, including by allowing institutions and others to pay a small sum in order 

to lock in a trade at the settlement price determined between 1:28 and 1:30 pm 

Chicago time for a given WTI contract. However, even in well-designed and well-
 63 

regulated futures contracts such as the WTI futures contract, the use of TAS 

contracts is subject to abuse when certain constraints exist in the market. See 

¶¶107-112 below. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that TAS serves a valuable function in 

physical delivery markets but denies in the remaining allegations in Paragraph 90 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

91. As recently stated by CFTC Commissioner Dan Berkovitz on 

November 24, 2020: “The potential for TAS trading to artificially affect the 

settlement price of a contract is well known; indeed, the CFTC has brought two 

enforcement cases based on the use of TAS to manipulate the price of futures 

contracts.” See 

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/berkovitzstatement112320a. 

Commissioner Berkovitz also expressed his view that the CFTC should look into 

the TAS trading activity in its investigation of the precipitous drop and rebound of 

WTI oil trading prices on April 20-21. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 91 refers to Commissioner Berkovitz’s 

public statements, Mr. Commins asserts that those statements speak for themselves 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 
 64 

allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

C. Buying Pressure, Selling Pressure, Cumulative Net Sales And 

Cumulative Selling Pressure 

92. All else equal, sales of futures contracts exert downward pressure on 

prices, and the larger the number of sales, the greater the downward pressure on 

prices. All else equal, purchases of futures contracts exert upward pressure on 

prices, and the greater the number of purchases, the greater the upward pressure on 

prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 92 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

93. All else equal, the more that a market participant (or a group of 

market participants) sells a commodity futures contract and the less that they say a 

commodity futures contract during a trade day, the more cumulative net sales they 

will make and downward pressure on prices that they exert. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 93 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

94. All other things equal, buying pressure in a commodity futures 

contract will tend to make prices higher than they otherwise would have been. 

Selling pressure in a commodity futures contract will tend to make prices lower 

than they otherwise would have been. 
 65 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 94 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

95. Bids are orders to buy a futures contract. Offers are orders to sell a 

futures contract. When the highest bid equals or exceeds the lowest offer, an 

agreement to purchase and sell a futures contract is made. Because the prices in the 

futures market are determined by the lowest offer and the highest bid, the futures 

markets are sometimes referred to as a dual auction market. After the match 

creating an execution, the bid and offer are removed from the order book to the 

extent of the match. The remaining bids and offers determine the prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that bids are orders to buy and offers 

orders to sell a futures contract. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 95 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

96. Orders to purchase or sell may be submitted in two general types. One 

is a “limit” order, which is an order to sell or buy at a price limit. A bid for $10 per 

barrel or better, is a bid to buy at a maximum of $10 and less than $10 if possible. 

An offer to sell at $10 per barrel is an offer to sell at $10 per barrel or higher, but 

not less than $10 per barrel. 
 66 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that a limit order is an order to buy or sell 

up to a certain price limit but denies in the remaining allegations in Paragraph 96 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

97. A market order is an order to buy at or above the available offer, or to 

sell at or below the available bid in the market. Limit orders which seek to buy at 

or above the lowest offer or sell at or below the highest bid are, in effect, market 

orders to that extent.4 A market order to sell 10 contracts is an offer to sell 10 

contracts at whatever the bid is in the market. If there are three contracts bid at $10 

per barrel, three contracts bid at $9.95 per barrel, three contracts bid at $9.90 per 

barrel, and one contract bid at $9.85 per barrel, the 10 contract market offer will, 

all other things equal, remove all of those from the order book and execute with the 

last price of $9.85 per barrel. The bid after that transaction will be whatever the 

highest bid is below $9.85 per barrel. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that a market order is an order to buy at or 

above the available offer, or to sell at or below the available bid in the market, and 

that a limit order is an order to buy or sell up to a certain price limit. Mr. Commins 

also admits that a market order to sell 10 contracts is an offer to sell 10 contracts at 

whatever the bid is in the market. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

4

 These are sometimes referred to as “marketable limit orders”. 
 67 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining hypothetical 

allegations contained in Paragraph 97 and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

98. All other things equal, market order sells exert downward pressure on 

prices and market order buys exert upward pressure on prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 98 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

99. Making offers to sell below the highest bid in a volume greater than 

the highest bid causes prices to decline and “sells through the market”. This 

removes from the order book the bids at the higher level. This is a sufficient, but 

not necessary condition to cause prices to decline. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 99 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

100. This can also execute the next bids and, depending on the size of the 

marketable offers and the size of the bids, take them out of the order book. If a 

trader adds marginal (i.e., extra) offers to a market which exceed the bids in the 

market at a given price, then the trader or traders will cause prices to move down. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 100 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

101. If a trader is able to add marginal offers at a given price that cause the 

total offers to exceed the total bids, then there will be downward pressure on prices 
 68 

and prices will move down. This is a significant but not a necessary condition to 

depress prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 101 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission And The United 

Kingdom Financial Control Authority Have Recognized That The Use By 

Traders Of Their Trades As “Ammo” Constitutes A Manipulative Device 

102. Regulators recognize that “ammo” is a term used by manipulators. 

Although the exact meaning of “ammo” varies in the context of the specific 

manipulation, the use of the term “ammo” signifies possession of the ability to 

make a quantity of transactions in a manner in which the transactions will depress 

or inflate futures contract prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 102 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

103. The FCA has previously explained that the use of the word “ammo” 

was part of a manipulative strategy to influence prices.5

5

 https://fcalegacy.videomarketingplatform.co/secret//62508029/a45a0407be96952c359daa5be8158bcc 

(video presentation showing multiple firms using the phrase “leaving you with the ammo” as part 

of the collusive conversation in an attempt to fix and move rates); see also FCA Final Notice 

against UBS, https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/final-notice-ubs.pdf. 

https://www.ft.com/content/47c32ec4-6a34-11e4-8fca-00144feabdc0 (“Furthermore, traders in a 

chatroom with net orders in the opposite direction to the desired movement at the fix sought to 

transact before the fix with traders outside the chatroom. The FCA said this practice was 

commonly referred to as “leaving you with the ammo”, building the volume of orders held by the 

traders in the chatroom in the desired direction and increasing their potential influence on the 

fix.”) 
 69 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 103 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 103 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

104. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission also 

recognized the use of the term “ammo” as being part of a manipulative device in 

the consent order in ISDAFix. There, the CFTC stated that “...traders would use 

limited “ammo” and timing techniques to attempt to manipulate...”. 

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrenforcementactions/d 

ocuments/legalpleading/enfroyalorder020317.pdf

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 104 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 104 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 70 

105. The CFTC, in providing “Examples of Misconduct in Private Chat 

Rooms”6, discusses the use of the word “ammo”. In an example under the heading, 

“Traders Share ‘Ammo’, the CFTC quotes a conversation where traders at 

different banks discuss “more ammo for you....” 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 105 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 105 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS 

A. The Abuse Of TAS Transactions To Manipulate Prices 

106. The use of TAS contracts may cause a fragmentation of order flow. 

Part of the order flow to purchase and sell, in this case, May Contracts, goes into 

the bids and asks for May Contracts. A different part of the order flow to purchase 

and sell May Contracts may be put into the TAS market. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

6

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/hsbcmisco

nduct111114.pdf 
 71 

107. Peer reviewed economic literature shows that this “fragmentation” of 

order flow into two different markets tends to (a) cause individual orders for the 

futures contract (here the May Contract) to have somewhat greater price impact; 

and that the purchase order in the TAS market does not exert buying pressure 

which offsets or equals the selling pressure in the futures contract, here the May 

Contract. Craig Pirrong, The Economics Of Commodity Market Manipulation: A 

Survey, Journal of Commodity Markets, Vol. 5, pp. 1-17, (March 2017). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 107 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 107 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

108. Thus, persons who purchased TAS contracts prior to or as they sell 

May Contracts during April 20, create for themselves an increasingly large 

financial interest in lower settlement prices for the May Contract. After their May 

Contract sales and TAS purchases go beyond an insignificant amount, certain types 

of traders have an increasingly large motive to make large net sales of the May 

Contract in order to exert downward pressure on the settlement price and create a 

profit for themselves. 
 72 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 108 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

109. Similarly, this type of manipulative trader, also has a large financial 

motive to recruit an increasingly large group of traders to follow the same modus 

operandi of selling the futures contract and buying the TAS contract. Combined, 

this group can exert cumulative net selling pressure on the (in this instance) May 

Contract as the day progresses. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 109 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

110. Then, as the end of trading approaches (in the last hour or half hour of 

trading), this type of trader has a motivation to ramp up their own sales to a large 

percentage of the market and exert further causation of depression through 

blatantly using their sales as “ammo” to depress prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 110 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

111. By doing the foregoing and also combining with other traders, this 

type of trader can bring its maximum pressure to bear on prices at the end of 

trading. Specifically, as the trading group’s net cumulative sales of the futures 

contract are reaching their highest levels and reaching the most cumulative 

downward effect on prices (by removing the largest cumulative amounts of bids 
 73 

from the order book), the trading group also increases its percentage of sales in the 

market and does so in an aggressive manner that converts that significant 

percentage of the share of the sales in the market into the manipulative device of 

“ammo”. Both the large percentage of sales and the greater impact per sale of 

making the sale as “ammo” (i.e., very aggressively to intentionally move down 

prices) exert separate and further downward impacts on prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 111 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

112. The foregoing profile is exactly what the Vega Trading Defendants 

did in the May Contract. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 112 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

B. Defendant Commins’ background and formation of a group that 

could execute a TAS manipulation. 

113. Defendant Paul Commins 

 Defendant Commins 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that 
 74 

. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 

113 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

114. Traders on the IPE reportedly combined together to make transactions 

in opposition directions in the futures contract and related TAS contract. For 

example, they would purchase the TAS contract and sell the futures contracts. By 

engaging in increasing selling as the day wore on, the IPE traders could cause the 

TAS contract prices to be lower. By depressing the TAS price, they IPE futures 

traders could make a profit on the difference between their higher priced sales 

earlier in the day and their lower prices at which they purchased at the end of the 

day by virtue of the lower settlement they caused and which, through the TAS 

mechanism, became their purchase price. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 114 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

115. After the closing of the IPE, former floor traders banded together at 

“arcades” or “prop” (proprietary trading) shops with five of these groups, known as 

the “five families” based in London. One advantage of having these groups is that 

they could exploit the TAS mechanism exactly by trading in a group. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 115 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 75 

116. Reportedly, Defendant Commins and other traders worked for one of 

the “five families” – – for a long time. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he traded through 

 but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 116 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

117. However, Defendant Commins then reportedly started his own group 

which consists at least of the other Vega Trading Defendants. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he started trading through Vega 

Capital London Ltd. and introduced some of the other Vega Trading Defendants to 

Vega but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 117 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

118. Reportedly, the Vega Defendants frequently make trades in the same 

contracts at around the same time to move prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 118 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

119.
 76 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 119 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies allegations 

contained in Paragraph 119 of the Second Amended Complaint to the extent they 

suggest that he engaged in any misconduct. 

120. Defendant Spires and 

Commins 

Answer: Paragraph 120 refers to written discovery materials, and Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. 

121.

 That is, the 

Vega Trading Defendants commit their trading capital to fund one another’s risks, 

which is similar to a joint venture in which the co-venturers commit their trading 

capital to help any member of the combine. 
 77 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 121 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins admits that he 

committed his individual capital to Vega Capital London, Ltd. but denies the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 121 of the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

122.

 Defendants Matthew Thompson and Paul 

Sutton 

 

 Defendant Paul Commins 

9

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 122 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

With respect to the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph 122, Mr. 

7

 VEGA_M1SH_000042676 

8

 VEGA_M1SH_000042676 

9 See https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07158619 
 78 

Commins admits that 

. Mr. Commins 

admits that he owned 25% of the equity of Futures Trading Facilities Limited and 

that David Kavanagh owned 50% of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 122 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

123. Defendant 

Commins Defendants Thompson 

and Sutton. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 123 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins admits that Defendant 

. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

remaining allegations in Paragraph 123 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

124. Also, Vega has a financial motive to see that Thompson and Sutton 

are in a position to try to make lots of profits; however, provided that the pool of 

capital is sufficient from the Vega Traders, Vega has no downside. I.e., the more 

risk that Thompson and Sutton take, the more that Vega stands to gain. 
 79 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 124 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

125. Defendant Paul Commins 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 125 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

126. Thus, Defendant Commins speaks on behalf of all the other 

Defendants. In such position, Defendant Commins not only knows the reasons 

behind what each trader was doing, but that the reasons were the exact same. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 126 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

127. When people act for exactly the same reasons, they are more likely to 

be in an agreement, especially if an agreement to combine together makes them 

more likely to achieve their goals and make their reasons work out. This is even 

more true when the reasons are a market power manipulation in which the traders 

are combining their cumulative net sales of the May Contract and separate 

purchases of TAS contracts to have the largest financial motive to manipulate and 

the largest ability to manipulatively depress May Contract prices at the close of 

trading on April 20. Finally, what they were doing on April 20 is exactly parallel to 
 80 

a TAS manipulation (described in ¶¶87-92, 107-113 above) and the type of TAS 

manipulations that occurred on the IPE (described in ¶¶114-116 above). It is also a 

type of manipulation which “families” of traders are well positioned to engage. See 

¶¶116-117 above. Reportedly, Commins and other traders at Vega vacation 

together, socialize together, and drink together. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 127 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

C. The Vega Defendants Manipulative Depression of May Contract 

Prices 

128. On April 20th, the Vega Defendants believed that the May Contract 

was in its next to last day of trading and was a “thin” market in which there was 

not great depth of trading and orders to purchase. The Vega Defendants believed 

that the May Contract was vulnerable to price depression by a concerted group of 

traders pursuing the following method. The traders would exert an increasing 

cumulative net selling pressure on the May Contract. As that cumulative net selling 

pressure reached high levels, the Vega Defendants would use their sales as 

manipulative “ammo”. See above. The use of the “ammo” would both depress 

prices directly, and also increase Vega’s rate of sales and the percentage of the 

total volume of May Contract sales that the Vega Defendants’ sales constituted. 

This combination of increasing cumulative net selling pressure (which had been 

removing purchase orders from the market), the use of manipulative “ammo” sales, 
 81 

and the large increases in Vega’s percentage of the overall volume of sales in the 

market would manipulatively depress May Contract prices during April 20th 

including at the time of the determination of the TAS. Thereby, the Vega 

Defendants would reap substantial profits from the higher prices at which they 

made their May Contract sales and the lower prices at which they would purchase 

as determined by the artificially depressed settlement price. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 128 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

129. As with all manipulations, there were risks to the manipulators of the 

success of their manipulation. But the Vega Defendants reportedly had prior 

experience with trading together at the same times to move prices. And they 

successfully executed their manipulative depression of May Contract prices. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 129 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

130. On April 20th, the May Contract price was approximately $11.69 per 

barrel at 9:00 a.m. in Chicago. From at or about 9:00 am on April 20th until at or 

about 11 am, the May Contract price declined from $11.69 to $10.33. During this 

time, the Vega Defendants placed increasing cumulative net selling pressure on the 

May Contract price. This caused the May Contract prices to be lower than they 

otherwise would have been. 
 82 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 130 refers to trading data, market data 

or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 130 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

131. Similarly, during the next time periods of the day (alleged below) the 

Vega trading Defendants continued to increase their cumulative net selling 

pressure on the May Contract price. During each of these periods, the Vega 

Trading Defendants placed increasing cumulative net selling pressure on the May 

Contract and caused the May Contract prices to be lower than they otherwise 

would have been. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 131 refers to trading data, market data 

or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 131 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

132. A manipulator seeks to sell at a high price and buy at a low price. The 

Vega Defendants followed this pattern. They exerted less pressure on May 

Contract prices until their cumulative net selling pressure had built up a substantial 

short position in the May Contract and a substantial TAS position to liquidate 
 83 

(purchase back) that short position at whatever that May Contract price turned out 

to be at the end of trading. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 132 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

133.

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 133 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

134. During this time period, the Vega Defendants 

a. Substantially increased their number of May Contracts sold per 

minute. 

b. Substantially increased their percentage of the total sales of May 

Contracts made by the entire market. 

c. Exerted greater depressive impact on prices, per each new May 

Contract sold, by selling in a manipulative “ammo” fashion. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 134 refers to trading data, market data 

or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 
 84 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 134 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

135. During the Vega Defendants’ final frenzy of manipulative ammo 

selling, they caused and help cause the May Contract to move into negative prices 

for the first time in history, and to experience the vast majority of its all-time 

record price decline on April 20th during a brief 20 minute period between 1:08 

and 1:28 pm. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 135 refers to trading data, market data 

or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 135 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

136. Specifically, due to the combination of all Vega’s foregoing steps, the 

May Contract declined from minus one penny per barrel to as low as minus 42 

dollars per barrel. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 136 refers to trading data, market data 

or other publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 136 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 
 85 

D. The Vega Trading Defendants Combined, Conspired and Worked In 

Concert For The Purpose of Depressing the Price of the May 2020 

WTI Crude Oil Futures Contract on April 20, 2020 

137. On April 20, 2020, each Vega Trading Defendant engaged in the 

exact same manipulative strategy: purchasing May Contracts via TAS and 

selling May Contracts for the purpose of depressing its price, which also allowed 

them to increase their position limits because they had less risk of the TAS.10

Having purchased large volumes of May Contracts via TAS, the Vega Trading 

Defendants had a large financial incentive for the price of the May Contract to go 

lower. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 137 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

138. On the trading day for April 20, 2020, each of the below Vega 

Trading Defendants purchased May Contracts via TAS and sold May Contracts in 

approximately the amounts set forth below. In total, the Vega Trading Defendants 

sold approximately May 2020 Contracts 

 and purchased approximately May Contracts via 

TAS.11 The Vega Trading Defendants’ profits in connection with their trading of 

the May Contract on April 20, 2020 totaled approximately 

10 Transactions in the May Contract, including sales, move prices. TAS transactions in the May 

Contract, including TAS purchases, have minimal or sometimes no impact on prices. 

11 On the trading day for April 20, 2020, the Vega Trading Defendants purchased approximately 

 May 2020 NYMEX WTI futures contracts via outright trades. Approximately 40% of these 
 86 

a. Defendant Connor Younger 

b. Defendant Elliott Pickering 

c. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

d. Defendant Henry Lunn 

e. Defendant Christopher Roase 

f. Defendant 

purchases came after 1:30 p.m. On the trading day for April 20, 

2020, the Vega Trading Defendants sold May Contracts via TAS. 
 87 

g. Defendant Mathew Thompson 

h. Defendant Paul Commins 

i. Defendant George Commins 

j. Defendant Paul Sutton 

k. Defendant 

 May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contract on April 20, 

2020. 

l. Defendant James Biagioni 

m.
 88 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 138 refers to trading data or written 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 138 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

139.

Connor Younger

Elliott Pickering

Aristos Demetriou

Henry Lunn

Christopher Roase

Matthew Thompson

Paul Commins

George Commins

Paul Sutton

James Biagioni

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 139 refers to trading data or written 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 
 89 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 139 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

140. Despite representing to the CME that the Vega Trading Defendants 

acted “independently” on April 20, 2020 (see ¶¶ 37, 126), the five Vega Trading 

Defendants with the highest volume of May Contract sales (approximately 69% of 

Vega’s total sales)—Defendants Younger, Pickering, Demetriou, Lunn and 

Roase—sold May Contracts in virtual lockstep as reflected in the below chart. 

Based upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Vega Trading 

Defendants entered trades manually, and not by computer program. 
 90 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 140 refers to trading data, market data 

or written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 140 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

141. A statistical correlation analysis of the minute-by-minute positions of 

Defendants Younger, Pickering, Demetriou, Lunn and Roase reflects that these 

five traders’ positions in the May Contract on April 20 were very highly correlated. 

Specifically, the minute-by-minute positions of these five traders in the May 
 91 

Contract had an extremely strong tendency (between 96.2% and 99.7%) to move 

in the same direction at the very same time throughout the day on April 20. 

 Demetriou Roase Lunn Younger Pickering 

Demetriou 

Roase 

Lunn 

Younger 

Pickering 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 141 refers to trading data, market data 

or written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 141 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

142. Further, each of the above Defendants additions to its positions was 

highly correlated with those of Defendant Paul Commins. 

Defendant Defendant Paul Commins 

Defendant Younger 

Defendant Demetriou 

Defendant Pickering 

Defendant Roase 

Defendant Lunn 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 142 refers to trading data, market data 

or written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 
 92 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 142 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

143. In order to depress the price of the May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil 

futures contract (and thereby reap large profits by purchasing via TAS May 

Contracts at an extremely low price), the Vega Trading Defendants combined and 

conspired to sell large volumes of May Contracts in the final hours before the 

settlement price of the May Contract was to be determined at approximately 1:30 

p.m. CST on April 20. See below. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 143 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

144. As detailed below, the Vega Trading Defendants’ large sales of the 

May Contract constituted an increasingly larger share of the total trading volume 

of the May Contract (growing to more than 30% of the total volume during the last 

approximately 22 minutes of trading) at the same times that the prices of the May 

Contract were increasing their rate of decline. Specifically: 

a. During the time period 9:00 a.m. CST until 11:00 a.m. CST on April 

20, 2020, the Vega Trading Defendants sold approximately 

May Contracts, which constituted approximately 6.7% of the total 

volume in the May Contract during the same time period. During this 

time period, the Vega Trading Defendants sold, on average, May 

Contracts per minute. The price of the May Contract decreased by 

approximately $1.36 per barrel from 9:00 a.m. CST (approximately 

$11.69 per barrel) to 11:00 a.m. CST ($10.33 per barrel). 
 93 

i. Defendant Elliott Pickering 

ii. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

iii. Defendant Christopher Roase 

iv. Defendant Conor Younger 

v. Defendant 

vi. Defendant Paul Commins 

vii. Defendant Henry Lunn 

viii. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

ix. Defendant George Commins 

x. Defendant Paul Sutton 

b. During the time period 11:00 a.m. CST until noon CST on April 20, 

2020, the Vega Trading Defendants sold approximately May 

Contracts, which constituted approximately 16.4% of the total volume 

in the May Contract during the same time period. During this time 

period, the Vega Trading Defendants sold, on average, May 

Contracts per minute. The price of the May Contract decreased by 

approximately $5.41 per barrel from 11:00 a.m. CST (approximately 

$10.33 per barrel) to noon CST ($4.92 per barrel). 
 94 

i. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

ii. Defendant Elliott Pickering 

iii. Defendant Christopher Roase 

iv. Defendant Henry Lunn 

v. Defendant Conor Younger 

vi. Defendant 

vii. . Defendant Matthew Thompson 

viii. Defendant Paul Commins 

ix. Defendant George Commins 

x. Defendant 

xi. Defendant Paul Sutton 

xii.

xiii. Defendant James Biagioni 
 95 

c. During the last 1.5 hours of trading (noon CST until 1:30 p.m. CST), 

the Vega Trading Defendants sold approximately May 

Contracts, which constituted approximately 23.6% of the total volume 

in the May Contract during the same time period. During this time 

period, the Vega Trading Defendants sold, on average, May 

Contracts per minute. The price of the May Contract decreased by 

approximately $42.55 per barrel from noon CST (approximately $4.92 

per barrel) to 1:30 p.m. CST (negative $37.63 per barrel). 

i. Defendant Conor Younger 

ii. Defendant Elliott Pickering 

. 

iii. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

iv. Defendant Henry Lunn 

v. Defendant Christopher Roase 

vi. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

vii. Defendant 

viii. Defendant Paul Commins 

ix. Defendant George Commins 

x. Defendant Paul Sutton 
 96 

xi. Defendant 

xii.

xiii. Defendant James Biagioni 

d. During the last half hour of trading (1:00 p.m. CST to 1:30 p.m. CST), 

the Vega Trading Defendants sold approximately May 

Contracts, which constituted approximately 29.2% of the total volume 

in the May Contract during the same time period. During this time 

period, the Vega Trading Defendants sold, on average, May 

Contracts per minute. The price of the May Contract decreased by 

approximately $38.29 per barrel from 1:00 p.m. CST (approximately 

$0.66 per barrel) to 1:30 p.m. CST (negative $37.63 per barrel). The 

average price decline of the May Contract during this time period was 

approximately $1.28 a barrel per minute. 

i. Defendant Conor Younger 

ii. Defendant Elliott Pickering 

iii. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

iv. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

v. Defendant Christopher Roase 

vi. Defendant Paul Commins 
 97 

vii. Defendant Henry Lunn 

viii. Defendant George Commins 

ix. Defendant 

. 

x. Defendant Paul Sutton 

xi. Defendant 

xii.

e. During the last approximately 22 minutes of trading (i.e., from the 

time when the first May Contract traded at a negative price 

(approximately 1:08:23 p.m. CST) until the 1:30 p.m. CST,) the Vega 

Trading Defendants sold approximately May Contracts, which 

constituted approximately 30.5% of the total volume in the May 

Contract during the same time period. During this time period, the 

Vega Trading Defendants sold, on average, May Contracts per 

minute. The price of the May Contract decreased by approximately 

$37.62 per barrel from approximately 1:08:23 CST (approximately 

negative $0.01 per barrel) to 1:30 p.m. CST (negative $37.63 per 

barrel). The average price decline of the May Contract during this 

time period was approximately $1.71 a barrel per minute. 

i. Defendant Conor Younger 

ii. Defendant Elliott Pickering 
 98 

iii. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

iv. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

v. Defendant Paul Commins 

vi. Defendant George Commins 

vii. Defendant Christopher Roase 

viii. Defendant 

ix. Defendant Henry Lunn 

x. Defendant Paul Sutton 

. 

xi.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 144 refers to trading data, market data 

or written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 144 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 
 99 

E. Net Cumulative Aggressive Sales Pressure. 

145. Though not a necessary condition for manipulation, a sufficient 

condition for manipulation the creation of significant net aggressive selling 

pressure on a futures contract. 

Answer: Paragraph 145 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 145 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

146. The CME provides an aggressor indicator in its market depth data for 

individual trades. The CME states 

“An aggressor is defined as any customer order that 

triggers a trade immediately upon entering the book. 

Tag 5797-AggressorSide indicates if the trade had an 

aggressor and, if so, which side of the book it was on. 

When an Aggressor Side is defined (1 = Buy, 2 = Sell), 

the first Order Detail level related to the Summary Level 

represents that aggressor order. 

 The aggressor quantity (tag 32) in the first Order 

Detail entry is equal to the Summary Level fill 

quantity (tag 271) 

 If the aggressor quantity (tag 32) in the first Order 

Detail entry is equal to the sum of the remaining 

Order Detail entries quantity associated with that 

Summary Level, only customer orders were filled in 

the trade 

 If the aggressor quantity (tag 32) is not equal to the 

sum of the remaining Order Detail entries quantity 

associated with that Summary Level, customer and 
 100 

implied orders were filled in the trade. The unreported 

quantity are the participating implied orders. 

 There may be only one Order Detail entry present, 

which means an aggressing customer order traded 

against implied orders only. 

 The aggressor quantity (tag 32) in the first Order 

Detail entry is not equal to the Summary Level fill 

quantity (tag 271) 

 In this case, the aggressor joined a pool of resting 

orders and thereby created sufficient quantity to 

trigger a trade. 

 This scenario can occur in any ratio spread where a 

different minimum quantity is required for each leg in 

order for the spread to trade. Examples include IVR 

and butterfly spreads.” 

https://www.cmegroup.com/confluence/display/EPICSANDBOX/MDP+3.0+-

+Trade+Summary+Order+Level+Detail Last reviewed on 1/22/2021. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 146 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

147. The CME describes the impact of an aggressor or an aggressing order 

as follows: 

An “Aggressor” or “Aggressing Order” by definition is 

an incoming order matching with one or more orders 

resting on the order book. The Aggressor pulls liquidity 

out of the order book by triggering a match event 

removing resting quantity and potentially price level 

from the order book. 

The Aggressor is identified in each order match during 

the continuous trading period and reported on all three 

customer interfaces, Order Entry, Market Data, and PostMatching/Clearing. There is no Aggressor indicator for 
 101 

trades occurring at the end of the market opening auction 

or any other state other than continuous trading. 

https://www.cmegroup.com/confluence/display/EPICSANDBOX/Order+Function

alities [last reviewed on 1/22/2021]. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 147 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

148. The CME describes multiple situations in which a transaction is not 

assigned an aggressor tag even if it has the impact of matching with one or more 

orders resting on the order book (and thereby “removing resting quantity and 

potentially price level from the order book”). These situations include the use of 

the mixing of a spread order and outright order to create an implied order for the 

execution, and during the market open re-open resolution trades. 

https://www.cmegroup.com/confluence/display/EPICSANDBOX/MDP+3.0+-

+Trade+Summary+Order+Level+Detail [last reviewed on 1/22/2021]. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 148 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

149. Also, the CME does not report an aggressor tag for market open and 

re-open resolution trades. Id. 
 102 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 149 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

150. Likewise, for spread trading the CME states 

“For trades involving spread instruments, the Aggressor 

is reported at the spread level only. Meaning, that the 

aggressor flag is only present in the Fill Notice for the 

spread summary and the flag is not present in the Fill 

Notices submitted for the leg components of the spread.” 

https://www.cmegroup.com/confluence/display/EPICSANDBOX/Order+Function

alities [last visited on 1/26/2021]. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 150 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

151. Accordingly, even transactions that do not appear in the CME 

aggressor column, may functionally constitute “aggressor” transactions if they 

remove resting bids or offers from the order book. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 151 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 
 103 

152. The CME record of aggressor sales minus the aggressor purchases for 

a given period (e.g., April 20, 2020) is one indication of the cumulative net selling 

pressure placed on the market during that period. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 152 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

153. If a market participant’s aggressive sales exceed that participant’s 

aggressive buys over a given period, then that participant will exert downward 

pressure on prices during that period. The greater the difference between the 

participant’s aggressive purchases and sales, the more selling pressure and the 

greater the decline in prices that participant will cause over that period, all else 

equal. The greater the percentage that a market participant’s net aggressive sales 

represent of the entire market’s net aggressive sales over a given period, the larger 

the proportion of the price decline during that period the market participant may 

cause. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 153 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

154. Total CME Net Aggressor Sales Of May Contracts On April 20.

The CME Market Depth FIX records reflect aggressive sales of approximately 

47,077 May Contracts and aggressive purchases of approximately 20,769 May 

Contracts on April 20. Subtracting the May Contracts transacted in aggressive 
 104 

purchases from the May Contracts transacted in aggressive sales on April 20, 

produces a net aggressive sales of May Contracts on April 20 of 26,306 contracts 

for the Chicago trading day from 9am. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 154 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

155. Through their coordinated selling pressure on the May Contract and 

their coordinated diversion of buying pressure into the TAS contract, the Vega 

Trading Defendants also made on April 20 aggressive sales of May Contracts that 

were much greater than their aggressive purchases of May Contracts. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 155 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 155 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

156. Estimating Vega’s Aggressive Sales. The CME has a column which 

designates trades as “aggressor” trades in its Order Entry, Market Data, and PostMatching/Clearing. A comparison between the exact prices and the exact times (to 

the nanosecond) of the transactions reflected in the CME’s Market Data as 

aggressive sales, with the exact prices and exact times (to the nanosecond) of 
 105 

Vega’s sales of May Contracts reflected in Vega’s records, produces an estimate of 

the approximate amount of aggressive sales made by the Vega Defendants during 

April 20. Based on this comparison, Plaintiff estimates that the Vega Defendants 

made aggressive sales of at least May Contracts on April 20. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 156 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 156 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

157. Estimating Vega’s Aggressive Purchases. A comparison between 

the exact prices and exact times to the nanosecond of the transactions reflected in 

the CME market data as aggressive purchases, with the exact prices and exact 

times (to the nanosecond) of Vega’s purchase of May Contracts reflected in Vega’s 

records, produces an estimate of the approximate amount of May Contracts of 

which Vega made aggressive purchases of approximately contracts on April 

20. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 157 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 
 106 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 157 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

158. Based upon the comparison of the data sets, Plaintiff has good 

grounds to believe and does allege that Vega made aggressive sales of at least 

 May Contracts and aggressive purchases of approximately May 

Contracts during April 20. Discovery is needed to determine the exact extent of 

Vega’s aggressor purchases and sales. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 158 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 158 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

159. Estimating Vega’s Net Aggressive Sales. Subtracting Vega’s 

estimated aggressive purchases of contracts from Vega’s estimated aggressive 

sales of May Contracts on April 20 produces a net aggressive sales by Vega 

on April 20, of at least contracts. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 159 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 
 107 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 159 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

160. Estimating The Percentage That Vega’s Net Aggressive Sales 

Constituted Of The Entire Market’s Net Aggressive Sales On April 20. The net 

aggressive sales by Vega of May Contracts on April 20 constitutes 

approximately 26.4% of the total net aggressive sales of May Contracts by 

the entire market on April 20. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 160 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 160 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

161. Applying the same methodology as applied above to the time periods 

within May 20, Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege as follows. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 161 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 161 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 
 108 

162. In addition to having a large share of the total volume of the May 

Contract, the Vega Trading Defendants had an even larger share of the cumulative 

total net aggressor sales. Specifically: 

a. From 9:00 a.m. CST until 11:00 a.m. CST, the Vega Trading 

Defendants had a minimum of approximately net aggressor sales 

of May Contracts out of a total of approximately net aggressive 

sales of May Contracts in the market during this same time period. 

Thus, the Vega Trading Defendants’ sales of May Contracts during 

this time period constituted at least of the total net aggressive 

sales of the total market during this time period. 

b. From 11:00 a.m. CST until noon CST, the Vega Trading Defendants 

had a minimum of approximately net aggressor sales of May 

Contracts out of a total of approximately net aggressive sales of 

May Contracts in the market during this same time period. Thus, the 

Vega Trading Defendants’ sales of May Contracts during this time 

period constituted at least of the total net aggressive sales of 

the total market during this time period. 

c. From noon CST until 1:30 CST, the Vega Trading Defendants had a 

minimum of approximately net aggressor sales of May 

Contracts out of a total of approximately net aggressive sales 

of May Contracts in the market during this same time period. Thus, 

the Vega Trading Defendants’ sales of May Contracts during this time 

period constituted at least of the total net aggressive sales of 

the total market during this time period. 

d. From 1:00 p.m. CST until 1:30 p.m. CST, the Vega Trading 

Defendants had a minimum of approximately net aggressor 

sales of May Contracts out of a total of approximately net 

aggressive sales of May Contracts in the market during this same time 

period. Thus, the Vega Trading Defendants’ sales of May Contracts 

during this time period constituted at least of the total net 

aggressive sales of the total market during this time period. 

e. From 1:08:23 p.m. CST until 1:30 p.m. CST, the Vega Trading 

Defendants had a minimum of approximately net aggressor 

sales of May Contracts out of a total of approximately net 

aggressive sales of May Contracts in the market during this same time 

period. Thus, the Vega Trading Defendants’ sales of May Contracts 
 109 

during this time period constituted at least of the total net 

aggressive sales of the total market during this time period. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 162 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 162 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

163. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that discovery 

will show that the Vega Defendants exerted an increasing cumulative net 

aggressive selling pressure on the May Contract during April 20; that their net 

aggressive sales ramped up during the last hours, the last hour, and the last 30 

minutes of trading; and that the combination of these steps exerted a substantial 

downward effect on prices during April 20. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 163 refers to trading data, market data 

or discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 163 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 
 110 

F. High Degree Of Communications Among Most Vega Defendants 

And The Common Plan For Everyone To Be Short And Use 

Manipulative “Ammo” At The End Of Trading. 

164. In furtherance of their agreement to depress May Contract prices, the 

Vega Trading Defendants communicated, in real time, about their sales of the May 

Contract and related matters. To do so, such Defendants employed text messages, 

group text messages, phone calls, and private “bulletin board” texting available via 

mobile phone “apps” such as “WhatsApp”. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 164 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 164 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

165. Through these means, the Vega Trading Defendants discussed their 

May Contract positions, their selling of WTI futures, their buying of TAS 

positions, and their plans for depressing WTI futures contract prices. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 165 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 165 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

166. Pursuant to Defendants agreement, Defendants Matt Thompson and 

Henry Lunn 
 111 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 166 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 166 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

167. By 1:05 Chicago time, Defendants had substantially ramped up their 

sales of May Contracts and their impact on prices. 

Defendants’ selling pressure on the May Contract had moved prices down and was 
 112 

getting very close to causing the May Contract prices to become negative. 

 Defendant Lunn 

 and Defendant Thompson 

 Also between 1pm and 1:30, the Vega Defendants increased their rate of 

sales to contracts per minute, and increased the amount of depression they 

caused per contract sold through the use of the manipulative device of “ammo” 

sales. See allegations “D” immediately preceding this section. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 167 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 167 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

168. Pursuant to Defendants’ agreement, three Vega Trading Defendants 

Lunn, Connor and Pickering 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 168 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 
 113 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 168 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

169. As is revealed by a comparison of all the records in this 

communication with Defendant Lunn’s statements alleged above in his 

communication with Defendant Thompson, Defendant Pickering 

 However, 

Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that Defendant Pickering 

 Defendant Lunn or Defendant Thompson 

 Defendant 

Pickering sold May Contracts from 1 p.m. Chicago time to 1:30 pm. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 169 refers to trading data or market 

data, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies 

Plaintiff's characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 169 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

170. Some of these conversations include the following: 

a) [Henry Lunn]: 

Connor Younger Fresh: 
 114 

Device owner Lunn: Elliot 

Pickering: 

b) Connor Younger 

 Lunn 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 170 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 169 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

171. Also pursuant to their combination and agreement, Defendants Paul 

Commins and Demetriou engaged in various conversations to keep one another 

apprised of their positions and intentions via texts on WhatsApp. Among other 

things, they compared their trading positions and confirmed their mutual intentions 

to sell May Contracts outright. 

a. Defendant Commins tells 

Defendant Demetriou to 

which Demetriou responds 

b. Defendant Demetriou asks 

Defendant Commins 

 Defendant Commins 

responds to Mr. Demetriou. 
 115 

c. Defendant Demetriou 

responds 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 171 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 171 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

172. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that Defendants 

Paul Commins and Defendant Demetriou confirmed to one another that the other 

Vega Trading Defendants were engaged in the same pattern of placing cumulative 

net selling pressure into the May Contract and diverting buying pressure away 

from the May Contract and into the TAS market. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 172 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

173. Defendant Demetriou 

Defendant Commins responds 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 173 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 
 116 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 173 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

174. The communications between Defendant Commins and Demetrious 

also indicate Defendants’ mutual knowledge of their concerted diversion of buying 

pressure away from the May Contract and into TAS contracts. 

a. Defendant Commins 

Defendant Demitriou 

b. Defendant Commins 

 Defendant Commins’ 

c. Defendant Commins 

d. Defendant Commins 

 Both Defendant Commins and Defendant 

Demetriou, 

e. Defendant Demetriou 

 Defendant Commins Mr. 

Demetriou’s 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 174 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 
 117 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 174 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

175. Defendants Roase 

and Demetriou (or Defendants Roase and Commins) 

 Defendant Roase’ 

 Defendant Demetriou and Commins, and Defendant Demetriou’s 

 with Defendant Commins. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 175 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 175 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

176.

 Defendant Roase 
 118 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 176 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

176 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

177.

 Defendant Roase (Dog) and Defendant Demetriou. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 177 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

177 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

178.

Defendant Henry Lunn stated 
 119 

Defendant Lunn 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 178 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

178 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

179.

 Defendant George Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 179 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 
 120 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 179 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

180. The Commins Defendants’ 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 180 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 180 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

181.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 181 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 
 121 

contained in Paragraph 181 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

182.

 

 
 122 

 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 182 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 182 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

183.

 Adrian Spires 

 [Henry Lunn] 
 123 

 Spires 

 [Henry Lunn], 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 183 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 183 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

184.

 Adrian Spires 

 (Demetriou and 

roase) 
 124 

 [Paul Commins]; 

 [Demetriou]; [Roase]; [George Commins]; 

 [Lunn]; [Younger]; [Thompson]; 

[Pickering]; 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 184 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 184 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

185. Adrian Spires Paul 

Commins 
 125 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 185 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 185 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

186. Adrian Spires 

 (Defendant Paul Commins) 

 (Defendants Aristos Demetriou and Christopher 

Roase). (Defendants Aristos 

Demetriou, Christopher Roase, and Henry Lunn), 

 [Defendant Henry Lunn] 

 [Defendant George Commins] 
 126 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 186 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 186 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

187. Henry Lunn 

 Adrian Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 187 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

187 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

188. Henry Lunn 

Adrian Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 188 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 
 127 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

188 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

189. Paul Commins 

 Adrian Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 189 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 189 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

190. Commins’ 

[Defendants Aristos Demetriou and Christopher Roase]. Defendants Aristos 

Demetriou and Christopher Roase 

 Paul 

Commins 
 128 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 190 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 190 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

191. George 

Commins Aristos Demetriou 

 Adrian 

Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 191 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

191 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

192.

 Adrian Spires 
 129 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 192 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 192 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

193. Adrian Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 193 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 
 130 

contained in Paragraph 193 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

194. Adrian Spires 

 Paul Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 194 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 194 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

G. The ICE WTI Crude Oil Futures Contract Price Is Explicitly 

Determined By The Price of the NYMEX WTI Crude Oil Futures 

Contract and Numerous Vega Trading Defendants Profited on the 

ICE Due to Artificially Depressing the May Contract Price on the 

NYMEX 

195. The Defendants had an additional motivation to intentionally cause 

(and they did cause) artificially depressed prices of the May Contract. This is 

because the closing price of the May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contract 

on April 20, 2020 determined the settlement price of the May Contract that expired 

on April 20, 2020. 
 131 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 195 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

196. The Intercontinental Exchange (“ICE”) offers trading in effectively 

the same WTI crude oil futures contracts as the NYMEX (i.e., representing 1,000 

barrels of WTI crude oil) with one important difference. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that ICE offers trading in a futures 

contract that may relate to WTI but denies the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph 196 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

197. Unlike NYMEX WTI futures contracts, which may be settled by 

physical delivery with trading terminating three business days prior to the 25th 

calendar day of the month prior to the contract month, trading in ICE WTI futures 

contracts terminate on the fourth business day prior to the 25th calendar day of the 

month by “cash settlement,” not physical delivery. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 197 refers to market data or other 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

198. More specifically, ICE WTI futures contracts cash settle to the 

penultimate settlement price of the corresponding NYMEX WTI crude oil futures 

contract. For example, on April 20, 2020, the May Contract cash settled to the 
 132 

settlement price of the May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contract on April 

20, 2020 (i.e., negative $37.63). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 198 refers to market data or other 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

199. On April 20, 2020, the total volume of May Contracts traded was 

approximately 20,789 contracts. At the end of trading on April 20, 2020, a total of 

approximately 23,241 May Contracts remained open and thereby were cash settled 

to the settlement price of the May Contract on April 20, 2020 (i.e., negative 

$37.63). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 199 refers to market data or other 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

200. On April 20, 2020, numerous Vega Trading Defendants engaged in a 

manipulative trading strategy on the ICE that was virtually identical to the 

manipulative trading strategy employed by the Vega Trading Defendants on the 

NYMEX (see ¶¶138-139 above): selling May Contracts and buying May Contracts 

via TAS. See ¶¶203 below. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 200 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 133 

201. Because the settlement price of the May Contract on April 20, 2020 

would be, by its express terms, determined by the closing price of the May 2020 

NYMEX WTI futures contract on April 20, 2020 (see ¶¶ 198-99 above), the Vega 

Trading Defendants’ artificial suppression of the May 2020 NYMEX WTI futures 

price alleged herein necessarily resulted in an artificially depressed price of the 

May Contract. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 201 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

202. On April 20, 2020, each of the below Vega Trading Defendants 

purchased May Contracts via TAS and sold May Contracts in approximately the 

amounts set forth below. 

a. Defendant Aristos Demetriou 

Demetriou 

b. Defendant Henry Lunn 

 Defendant Lunn 

c. Defendant Christopher Roase 

 Defendant 

Roase 
 134 

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 202 refers to market data or other 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 202 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

H. Vega Also Made Its Sales In An Aggressive Manner. 

203. Another means that may be used to depress prices is to make sales in 

an aggressive manner. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 203 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 135 

204. Thus, when an “aggressor” sale is executed, it “pulls liquidity out of 

the order book” by “removing resting” bid or bids to purchase contracts. In the 

context of the imbalance of sell orders over buy orders on April 20, the more that 

the bids were pulled out of the order book by executions, the closer that the sell 

orders were to “blitzing” through the orders and causing a rapid decline in prices. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 204 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 204 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

205. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that considerably 

more than one half of Vega’s sales were “aggressor” sales. Plaintiff has good 

grounds to believe that discovery will reveal that up to 90% or more of Vega’s 

sales were aggressor sales. Plaintiff’s grounds for these allegations include the 

following. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 205 refers to trading data, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in contained 

in Paragraph 205 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 136 

206.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 206 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. 

207.

. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 207 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 207 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

208. Fourth, making “aggressive” sales is consistent with the Vega 

Defendants conduct otherwise alleged herein, including at ¶¶42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52-

53, 55-59, 112, 146, 154-61, 163-64, 204, 209. 
 137 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 208 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

NEW ALLEGATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER 

I. The Extensive Interconnections, And Formal Contract Among Vega, 

, And The Vega Trading Defendants. 

209. Vega’s contract governing its relations with the Vega Trading 

Defendants was an agreement made among (a) Vega, (b) 

, and (c) the Vega Trading Defendants. See ¶¶239-243 below. 

Answer: To the extent that Paragraph 209 refers to a document that is in 

writing, Mr. Commins asserts that it speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff's 

characterization of the same. 

A. The Extensive Interconnections. 

1. The Profit Interests Of Defendants Vega And Spires In . 

210. Until April 1, 2021, was 

owned 25% by Defendant Paul Commins, 25% by , and 

50% by who was another trader and FCA approved representative 

of Starmark.12 ¶123. Defendant Commins was listed as an office manager and 

director of the company. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that until April 1, 2021, he partly owned 

. To the extent Paragraph 210 refers to 

12 See https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07158619 
 138 

publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks 

for itself and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations in Paragraph 210 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

211. On April 1, 2021, filing with the Companies House disclosed 

for the first time that Adrian Spires was also a person with a significant interest 

and, in fact, control of . The filing disclosed that Spires “holds, directly or 

indirectly, 75% or more of the voting rights in the company”, and that 

 were removed as directors of . Based on this 

filing, Plaintiff alleges that, from some point prior to or as of April 1, 2021 

forward, Spires owned a (substantial) share of the equity and held a (substantial) 

share of the voting rights of . 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 211 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remainder of 

the allegations in Paragraph 211 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 
 139 

212. On March 1, 2022, was dissolved pursuant to an application cosigned by Defendants Spires and Commins, and no further information was 

provided. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that was dissolved effective March 1, 

2022. With respect to the remainder of the allegations, Paragraph 212 of the 

Second Amended Complaint references material that is in writing and speaks for 

itself, and Mr. Commins denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

213. As alleged below (¶¶214-223), 

Defendant Spires’ 

 Defendant Spires 

Answer: To the extent that Paragraph 213 refers to written discovery, 

those materials speak for themselves, and Mr. Commins denies Plaintiff's 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 213 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 140 

214.

 

 Thompson and Sutton. 

 Thompson’s 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he partly owns 

 and that Mr. Commins agreed 

 Defendant Vega. To the extent Paragraph 214 refers to written 

discovery material or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that 

such information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the 

same. Mr. Commins admits that Defendants 

. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 214 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

215. Defendant Thompson’s profits, Defendants 

Matt Thompson and Henry Lunn 

 

13 VEGA_MISH_000042676 
 141 

 

 Elliot Pickering 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 215 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

215 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

216.

 Defendant Sutton, Mr. Sutton 

 George Commins 

 See ¶¶328-333 below. As a result of their 

consulting with one another in their trading of the May Contract, Defendant 

Sutton’s trading had an extraordinarily high minute to minute correlation with 

Defendant George Commins’ positions of .99. See ¶319 below. And Defendant 
 142 

Sutton’s trading also had high correlations of .988 to .951 with the trading of 

Defendants Younger, Pickering, and Lunn. Id. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 216 refers to trading data or discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 216 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

217. As previously alleged, Defendant Thompson made approximately 

and Defendant Sutton made approximately from their 

manipulative trades on April 20th. 

 Defendant Thompson and Defendant Sutton 

 Defendants Thompson and Sutton 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 217 refers to trading data or discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 217 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 143 

218.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 218 refers to trading data or discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 218 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

219. Thompson and 

Sutton 

 Defendants Thompson and Sutton 

 See ¶218. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 219 refers to trading data or discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 
 144 

Paragraph 219 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

220. Thompson-Sutton 

 Thompson and Sutton 

 See ¶218. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he agreed 

. To the extent Paragraph 220 refers to written 

discovery material or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that 

such information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the 

same. Mr. Commins admits that 

. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 220 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

221.

 Thompson-Sutton 
 145 

 See ¶218. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 221 refers to trading data or discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 221 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

222.

 Spires 

Answer: Paragraph 222 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 222 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

223.
 146 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 223 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

2. The Formation Of Vega. 

a. During 2015 And 2016, The United Kingdom Announces And 

Implements Enhanced Prohibitions Of Manipulation 

224. By as early as May 11, 2015, the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority 

published its policy proposals and handbook of rules and guidance to support the 

implementation of the new European Market Abuse Regulation regime, to apply 

from July 3, 2016. FCA consults on Market Abuse Regulation policy proposals and 

Handbook changes, FCA Press Release (May 11, 2015), at 

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-consults-market-abuse-regulationpolicy-proposals-and-handbook-changes; see FCA’s website Market Abuse 

Regulation, at https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/market-abuse/regulation, hyperlink 

“EU Market Abuse Regulation” (Regulation (EU) No. 596/2014 of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of April 16, 2014 on market abuse (market abuse 

regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of 

the Council and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 

2004/72/EC) (last visited Apr. 27, 2022). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 224 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 
 147 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 224 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

225. By December 17, 2015, the European Union supplemented the EU 

Market Abuse Regulation. See E.U. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 

2016/522 (applicable from July 3, 2016), at 

https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/market-abuse/regulation, hyperlink “Delegated 

Regulation 2016/522” (last visited Apr. 27, 2022). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 225 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 225 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

226. Effective July 3, 2016, the EU Market Abuse Regulation was 

automatically applicable in the UK under UK and EU law without the need for any 

domestic implementing legislation as the UK was a member of the EU at the time 

of implementation, and the UK amended its Financial Services and Market Act 

2000 to give effect to and make it compatible with the EU Market Abuse 
 148 

Regulation. Financial Services and Market Act 2000 (Market Abuse) Regulations 

2016, Part 1.1 (Statutory Instruments, 2016 No. 680) (“UK MAR”). See Market 

Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK Statutory Instruments (2019 

No. 310) (substantially retaining EU Market Abuse Regulation following the end 

of the Brexit transition period, pursuant to the European Union (Withdrawal Act 

2018), available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/310/contents/made 

(last visited April 28, 2022). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 226 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 226 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

227. For purposes of Article 12(1)(a) of the UK MAR, which prohibits 

manipulation, the UK MAR explicitly sets forth non-exhaustive indicators of 

manipulative trading, effective July 3, 2016. UK MAR, Annex I 

(https://www.fca.org.uk/markets/market-abuse/regulation#revisions, at hyperlink 

“Market Abuse Regulation (MAR)”) (“UK MAR, Annex I”). The indications 

include: 

(a) the extent to which orders to trade given or 

transactions undertaken represent a significant proportion 
 149 

of the daily volume of transactions in the relevant 

financial instrument ..., in particular when those activities 

lead to a significant change in their prices; 

(b) the extent to which orders to trade given or 

transactions undertaken by persons with a significant 

buying or selling position in a financial instrument..., 

lead to significant changes in the price of that financial 

instrument, related spot commodity contract, or 

auctioned product based on emission allowances; 

**** 

(e) the extent to which orders to trade given or 

transactions undertaken are concentrated within a short 

time span in the trading session and lead to a price 

change which is subsequently reversed; 

**** 

(g) the extent to which orders to trade are given or 

transactions are undertaken at or around a specific time 

when reference prices, settlement prices and valuations 

are calculated and lead to price changes which have an 

effect on such prices and valuations. 

UK MAR, Annex I. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 227 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 227 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 
 150 

b. These Enhanced Protections Against Manipulation Created 

Greater Financial And Legal Risks For Firms Which Carried 

Accounts For Manipulators. 

228. After the announcements in 2015 about the increased regulations 

against manipulations and market abuses, it was clear that there would be greater 

legal and financial risks for registered persons to hold the accounts of 

manipulators, including persons who manipulated prices at or around the time of 

the determination of the TAS. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 228 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 228 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

229. These legal and financial risks created incentives to form and opened 

opportunities for persons to form trading firms that could assume the substantial 

legal and financial risk of working with persons who engaged in TAS 

manipulations. Such firms could seek to create a series of norms, trading 

procedures, and compliance (or lack thereof) that facilitated and would help defend 

against charges of TAS manipulations. 
 151 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 229 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 229 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

230. In the foregoing context, Vega was incorporated on May 13, 2016, 

with Anthony Gibson as its sole shareholder. See ¶34. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 230 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

c. Vega’s Apparent Founder, Anthony Gibson, Is A Business 

Partner With Defendant Commins, Including In 

231. Anthony Gibson and Defendant Paul Commins are or have been 

business partners in various ventures. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Anthony Gibson is or has been his 

business partner in certain construction ventures. To the extent Paragraph 231 

refers to written discovery material, Mr. Commins asserts that such information 

speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 
 152 

232. These include, without limitation, 

 and 

. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Anthony Gibson is or has been his 

business partner in and 

. To the extent Paragraph 

232 refers to written discovery material or publicly available information, Mr. 

Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. 

233. On November 9, 2018, Commins, Gibson and Demetriou incorporated 

 as a private limited company 

. According to Companies House records, Demetriou resigned as 

Director on October 7, 2019 and was replaced the same day by Elliott Pickering, 

identified as “Derivatives Trader.” Pickering resigned as Director on May 7, 2020. 

All four owned significant shares in during their directorships, with Commins 

and Gibson still continuing as Directors of , which has an 

active company status with the latest confirmation statement filed on November 

18, 2021. 
 153 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 233 refers to written discovery material 

or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information 

speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

234. Defendant Spires worked at and knew Defendant 

Commins while at during 2007 and later. According to the 

Businessweek article “The Essex Boys: How Nine Traders Hit a gusher With 

Negative Oil,” Commins did know Spires while Commins was running “an off-site 

offshoot of Tower Trading Group,” and when Spires and Gaunt left to “start their 

own outfit,” Commins and his team of traders joined him. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he traded through 

 and knew Mr. Spires. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 234 of the Second Amended Complaint. To the extent 

Paragraph 234 refers to written discovery material or publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

235. It was also Commins’ partner, Anthony Gibson who signed on behalf 

of Vega the agreement with GH Financials alleged below. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 235 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 
 154 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 235 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

d. Vega’s High Turnover Of Four Owners In Three Years Before 

Spires Becomes Sole Shareholder. 

236. As previously alleged, Vega had four different owners within three 

years. See ¶34. By February 3, 2020, Defendant Spires was the sole owner of 

Defendant Vega. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 236 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

237. Between October 26, 2017 and August 13, 2019, Vega was registered 

with the United Kingdom Financial Control Authority as an Appointed 

Representative of Starmark. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 237 of the 

Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

B. The Written Agreement Between And Among Vega, , And The 

Vega Trading Defendants. 

238. In Autumn 2017 and thereafter, a 

 (“Agreement”) was made between and among 
 155 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 238 refers to written information, Mr. 

Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

238 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

239. Pursuant to this Agreement 
 156 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 239 refers to written information, Mr. 

Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 239 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 157 

240.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 240 refers to written information, Mr. 

Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 

240 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

241.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 241 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 
 158 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 241 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

242.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 242 refers to publicly available 

information, Mr. Commins asserts that such information speaks for itself and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations in 

Paragraph 242 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

C. In Its “Market Facing” Agreement With GH Financials, Vega 

Expressly Agreed That It Was The Principal For Each Trade By A 

Vega Trading Defendant And That The Vega Trading Defendants 

Were Acting As Vega’s “Agent” Or Otherwise Acting For Or On 

Behalf Of Vega. 

243. GH Financials (see ¶65 above) was a clearing member of the CME. 

Pursuant to a “GH FINANCIALS LIMITED TERMS OF BUSINESS FOR 

EXCHANGE TRADED FUTURES AND OPTIONS BUSINESS” (“TOB”) 

(Version 15.1) dated July 12, 2016, and signed by Anthony Ross Gibson on behalf 
 159 

of Vega Capital London Ltd., Vega agreed in entering its relationship with GH 

Financials that: 

TOB ¶27 (f). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 243 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 243 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

244. Vega Expressly Agreed That Trades In Its Accounts Would Be 

Made On Vega’s Behalf By Authorized Persons. Pursuant to Vega’s agreement 

with GH Financials, only of Vega were permitted to perform 

acts on behalf of Vega. 
 160 

TOB ¶9 [emphasis added]. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 244 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 244 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

245. Plaintiff alleges that an under ¶9 of Vega’s Agreement with GH 

Financials quoted above, included the placing of , and the holding of 

orders that were as trades. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 245 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 245 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 
 161 

246. Each Vega Trading Defendant typically placed “orders” for its subaccount which were “executed” by GH Financials. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that he placed orders in a Vega subaccount that were executed by GH Financials. To the extent Paragraph 246 refers 

to written discovery materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 246 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

247. As such, pursuant to Vega’s TOB with GH Financials, ¶9, each Vega 

Trading Defendant was acting either as Vega’s or 

had otherwise been granted by Vega to of Vega to 

enter trades, or had otherwise been granted authority by Vega in its trades. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 247 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that such 

information speaks for itself and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 247 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 
 162 

248. Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to TOB ¶9, Vega was the 

 for all trades made by each Vega Trading Defendant. 

Answer: Paragraph 248 of the Second Amended Complaint contains 

legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, Mr. Commins states that Paragraph 248 refers to written material that 

speaks for itself denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

249. Vega and GH Financials also entered a “Clearing Module” on July 12, 

2016. They later entered, on or about November 16, 2017, an updated Terms of 

Business for Exchange Traded Futures and Options Business. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 249 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 249 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

250. Neither the Clearing Module nor the updated November 16, 2017 

agreement purported to modify or amend the foregoing provisions of the TOB in 

any way. 

Answer: Paragraph 250 contains legal conclusions to which no response 

is requires. To the extent a response is required, Mr. Commins states that 
 163 

Paragraph 250 refers to written materials which speak for themselves, and Mr. 

Commins denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 250 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

251. On the contrary, the 2017 TOB expressly provides and adds to the 

former clause 27(f) (quoted above): 

2017 TOB ¶6(b). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 251 refers to written materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 251 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

252. “Applicable Regulations” is defined in ¶5 of the 2017 TOB as 

meaning: 
 164 

2017 TOB ¶5. For transactions on the CME, applicable laws include U.S. laws, 

including, but not limited to the laws prohibiting manipulation, and agreements to 

fix and manipulate prices. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 252 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 252 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

253. When GH Financials terminated its business with Vega after the May 

Contract manipulation on April 20th, GH Financials did not terminate the business 

only with the Vega Trading Defendants. Instead, GH Financials terminated all

business with Vega. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 253 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 
 165 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 253 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

1. Long Before April 20, 2020, Defendants Vega And Spires Well 

Knew That The VTDs Traded In Unison To Manipulate Prices. 

254. The Vega Trading Defendants “regularly” acted in unison to make 

transactions which moved the TAS price at the time of settlement. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 254 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

255. For example, in an award-winning article authored by Liam Vaughan, 

Kit Chellel & Benjamin Bain, London Traders Hit $500 Million Jackpot When Oil 

Went Negative, Bloomberg Businessweek (August 4, 2020) explicitly reported as 

follows: 

Vega’s jackpot [on April 20, 2020 in the May contract] 

...involved about a dozen traders aggressively selling oil 

in unison before the May West Texas Intermediate 

contract settled at 2:30 p.m. in New York...It’s a tactic 

Vega’s traders used regularly, according to another 

person familiar with the firm’s strategy... 

See full copy of article, annexed as Exhibit 2 to this Amended Complaint. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 255 refers to public articles, without 

conceding the accuracy of the content of those public articles, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those articles speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 
 166 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 255 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

256. In another award-winning article authored by Liam Vaughan, The 

Essex Boys: How Nine Traders Hit a Gusher With Negative Oil, Bloomberg, 

(December 10, 2020) explicitly reported that 

...trading records and people who worked alongside 

them [the VTDs] indicate they [the VTDs] frequently 

operated in a similar fashion [to their conduct on April 

20th in the May Contract], buying or selling in the same 

direction at key moments. 

See full copy of article, annexed as Exhibit 1 to this Amended Complaint. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 256 refers to public articles, without 

conceding the accuracy of the content of those public articles, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those articles speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 256 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

257. The articles won the British Journalism award for Crime and Legal 

Affairs Journalism in 2021. https://pressgazette.co.uk/british-journalism-awardswinners-2021/

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 257 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 
 167 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 257 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

258. The award-winning journalism quoted above reports that “trading 

records”, “people who worked alongside” the Vega Trading Defendants, and “a 

person familiar with the firm’s strategy”, all show or indicate that, prior to April 

20, 2020, the Vega traders “regularly” or “frequently” traded in a similar fashion to 

their manipulative trading on April 20th. Regarding the reference to “trading 

records” in the award winning article quoted above, Vega and Spires also had 

complete knowledge of the trading records of the Vega Trading Defendants. This 

included real time knowledge of what the VTDs were trading and doing. Prior to 

COVID, Vega and Spires had at times worked in the same office and “alongside” 

at least some of the VTDs in the trading arcade. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 258 refers to public articles, without 

conceding the accuracy of the content of those public articles, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those articles speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 258 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

259. In fact, Defendants Vega and Spires had access to much more than 

simply the trading records. Based on the allegations set forth below, Defendants 
 168 

Vega and Spires had sophisticated detailed analytical tools in real time. This 

enabled Defendants Vega and Spires easily to detect trading patterns in real time, 

as these patterns developed. This included high degrees of correlation of the 

trading between and among the accounts. Among other things: 

 Adrian Spires, 

b. Spires, 

c.

 Adrian Spires 

d.
 169 

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.
 170 

j. Spires, 

k.

l.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 259 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 259 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

260. Corroborating the award winning journalism based upon the multiple 

sources alleged above, VTD Lunn stated that “ 

 See ¶179 above. VTD 
 171 

Lunn’s 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 260 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 260 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

261. As of April 20, 2020, Defendants Vega and Spires also had handled 

the VTDs’ trading for . Vega and Spires also well knew that the Vega 

Trading Defendants had for years traded together to markets by making 

trades in unison to move prices. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 261 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 261 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

2. The Vega Trading Defendants Engaged in Coordinated Trading 

In WTI Crude Oil Futures Contracts A Month Prior to Engaging 

in Substantially Similar But More Extreme Conduct on April 20, 

2020 

262. By March 19, 2020, the penultimate trading day in the April 2020 

NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contract, the trading volume in the April 2020 

contract had been significantly reduced. The low volume (i.e., “thin” market) made 

the April 2020 contract susceptible to manipulation by “ammo” trading. 
 172 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 262 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 262 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

263. The average trading volume in the April 2020 contract for the twenty 

(20) trading days preceding March 19, 2020 was approximately 881,814 contracts. 

The trading volume in the April 2020 contract on March 19, 2020 was 

approximately 136,722 contracts, an 84.5% decrease in the average volume for the 

preceding twenty (20) trading days. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 263 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 263 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

264. On March 19, 2020, the Vega Trading Defendants sold approximately 

 April 2020 contracts, purchased approximately May 2020 contracts, 

purchased approximately April 2020 contracts via TAS and sold 

approximately May 2020 contracts via TAS. 
 173 

.

14

a. Defendant Demetriou ( 

b. Defendant Roase 

c. Defendant Pickering 

d. Defendant Paul Commins 

e. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

f. Defendant Younger 

g. Defendant Lunn 

14 Defendants , Biagioni, Sutton and did not trade NYMEX WTI futures on March 

19, 2020. 

15 Defendant Demetriou also sold May 2020 contracts and purchased May 2020 

contracts via TAS. 

16 Defendant Pickering also purchased April 2020 contracts and sold May 2020 

contracts. 

17 Defendant Younger also purchased April 2020 contracts, sold April 2020 contracts 

via TAS, sold May 2020 contracts and purchased May 2020 contracts via TAS. 
 174 

h. Defendant George Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 264 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 264 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

265. The foregoing short April and long May “spread” positions, along 

with the corresponding TAS orders to buy the April contract and sell May contract 

at their respective settlement prices, gave each of the above Vega Trading 

Defendants an incentive to depress the price of the April contract relative to the 

price of the May contract. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 265 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

18 Defendant Lunn also sold May 2020 contracts. 
 175 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 265 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

266.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 266 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

267.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 267 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the 
 176 

allegations contained in Paragraph 267 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

268. Based upon Plaintiff’s interpretations of 

 and CME market depth data 

for March 19, 2020, Plaintiff alleges as follows with respect to the intra-day 

trading of the Vega Trading Defendants on March 19, 2020. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 268 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 268 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

269. During the final hour of trading on March 19, 2020 (i.e., 12:30 to 1:30 

pm central time) the Vega Trading Defendants sold a total of approximately 

April 2020 contracts.19 That is, the Vega Trading Defendants waited until late in 

the trading day and compressed more than of their total April 2020 contract 

sales during the final hour of trading. During the final hour of trading, the price of 

the April-May spread decreased from approximately negative 53 cents at 12:30 pm 

19 The Vega Trading Defendants also purchased April 2020 contracts during the final hour 

of trading. 
 177 

to approximately negative 69 cents at 1:30 pm. During the final hour of trading, the 

Vega Trading Defendants sold the April 2020 contract in the following volumes. 

a. Defendant Demetriou 

b. Defendant Pickering 

c. Defendant Younger 

d. Defendant Roase 

e. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

f. Defendant Lunn 

g. Defendant Paul Commins 

h. Defendant George Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 269 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 269 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

270. During the final thirty (30) minutes of trading on March 19, 2020 (i.e., 

1:00 to 1:30 pm central time) the Vega Trading Defendants sold a total of 

20 Defendant Pickering also purchased April 2020 contracts during the final hour of trading. 

21 Defendant Younger also purchased April 2020 contracts during the final hour of trading. 
 178 

approximately April 2020 contracts.22 That is, the Vega Trading Defendants 

waited until late in the trading day and compressed more than of their total 

April 2020 contract sales during the final thirty (30) minutes of trading. During the 

final thirty (30) minutes of trading, the price of the April-May spread decreased 

from approximately negative 49 cents at 1:00 pm to approximately negative 69 

cents at 1:30 pm. During the final thirty (30) minutes of trading, the Vega Trading 

Defendants sold the April 2020 contract in the following volumes. 

a. Defendant Pickering 

b. Defendant Demetriou 

c. Defendant Younger 

d. Defendant Lunn 

e. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

f. Defendant Paul Commins 

g. Defendant George Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 270 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

22 The Vega Trading Defendants also purchased April 2020 contracts during the final thirty 

minutes of trading. 

23 Defendant Pickering also purchased April 2020 contract. 

24 Defendant Younger also purchased April 2020 contracts. 
 179 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 270 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

271. During the final two (2) minutes of trading on March 19, 2020 (i.e., 

1:28 to 1:30 pm central time) the Vega Trading Defendants sold a total of 

approximately April 2020 contracts. During the final two (2) minutes of 

trading, the price of the April-May spread decreased from approximately negative 

65 cents at 1:28 pm to approximately negative 69 cents at 1:30 pm. During the 

final two (2) minutes of trading, the Vega Trading Defendants sold the April 2020 

contract in the following volumes. 

a. Defendant Demetriou 

b. Defendant Paul Commins 

. 

c. Defendant Pickering 

d. Defendant Matthew Thompson 

e. Defendant George Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 271 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 271 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 
 180 

272. Based on time and sales information in the CME market depth data 

, the Vega Trading 

Defendants’ (a) sales of approximately April 2020 contracts during the final 

hour of trading constituted approximately of the volume of April 2020 

contracts during that time period; (b) sales of approximately April 2020 

contracts during the final thirty (30) minutes of trading constituted approximately 

 of the volume of April 2020 contracts during that time period; and (c) sales of 

approximately April 2020 contracts during the last two (2) minutes of trading 

constituted approximately of the volume of April 2020 contracts during that 

time period. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 272 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 272 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

273. At the close of trading on March 19, 2020, the April-May spread 

settled at negative 69 cents. The closing spread price of negative 69 cents on 

March 19 was an all-time low for the spread price of the April-May 2020 contracts 
 181 

and was more than four standard deviations lower than the mean spread over the 

prior year of trading. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 273 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 273 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

274. At the close of the next trading day on March 20, 2020, the April-May 

spread settled at negative 20 cents. Thus, on March 20, 2020, after Vega’s trading 

on March 19 had ceased, the spread price rebounded substantially by 49 cents. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 274 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 274 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

275. In total, the Vega Trading Defendants generated net profits of 

approximately in connection with their trading of April and May 2020 

contracts on March 19, 2020: 
 182 

a. Defendant Roase 

. 

b. Defendant Demetriou 

c. Defendant Paul Commins 

d. Defendant Pickering 

e. Defendant Thompson 

f. Defendant Younger 

g. Defendant Lunn 

h. Defendant George Commins 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 275 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 275 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 
 183 

3. Based on the Vega Trading Defendants’ Activities on March 19, 

2020 and Other Reasons, Defendants Vega Capital and Spires 

Knew That The Vega Trading Defendants Were Engaged in 

Manipulative Trading And Affirmatively Took Steps To Facilitate 

The Manipulation. 

276. The potential for abuse of TAS trading in order to affect the price of a 

commodity futures contract is well known. The Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (“CFTC”) has brought multiple cases involving TAS trading, 

including TAS trading in the WTI crude oil futures market. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

276 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

277. In 2016 new regulations were passed in the U.K. that included a nonexhaustive list of manipulative trading indicators. Such indicators included: (a) 

significant buying or selling of a financial instrument that leads to significant 

changes in the price of that financial instrument; (b) transactions concentrated 

within a short time span in the trading session and lead to a price change which is 

subsequently reversed; and (c) transactions undertaken at or around the time when 

settlement prices are calculated which have an effect on such prices. All three of 

these indicators were present in respect of the Vega Trading Defendants’ trading 

activity on March 19, 2020. See ¶¶224-227 above. 
 184 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 277 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 277 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

278. As part of Vega agreement with GH Financials, Vega represented, 

warranted and agreed, among other things, that 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 278 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 
 185 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 278 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

279.

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 279 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 279 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

280. As part of its agreement with GH Financials, Vega agreed to 

 As part of Vega’s agreement with 

the Vega Trading Defendants, Vega agreed to GHF 

TOB Annex 3, Section 3 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 280 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 
 186 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 280 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

281.

 Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 281 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 281 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

282. According to Bloomberg’s award-winning reporting, a person familiar 

with Vega’s strategy stated that Vega’s traders “regularly” traded in unison. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 282 refers to public articles, without 

conceding the accuracy of the content of those public articles, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those articles speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 282 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 187 

283. Far beyond being merely “familiar” with the Vega Trading 

Defendants’ strategy, Defendants Vega and Spires had real time access to all 

trading in Vega’s accounts and received daily statements of all trading in Vega’s 

accounts, 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 283 refers to written discovery 

materials or publicly available information, Mr. Commins asserts that those 

materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 283 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

284. A review of Vega’s trading on March 19, 2020, just a month before 

April 20, would have revealed the following “red flags” to Defendants Vega and 

Spires: (a) each of the eight Vega Trading Defendants that traded NYMEX WTI 

crude oil futures traded in the exact same direction in both the April and May 

contracts; (b) each of the eight traders that traded NYMEX WTI crude oil futures 

also used TAS orders in the same direction for both the April and May contracts; 

(c) the traders traded a significant volume of contracts in the April contract (more 

than contracts or more than barrels of 

oil), which was set to expire the following day; (d) a substantial volume of 

transactions by the Vega Trading Defendants were concentrated near the end of 
 188 

trading on March 19, 2020; and (e) the April-May spread price moved in the 

direction of Vega’s trading on March 19, 2020 and then reversed on the next 

trading day on March 20, 2020. See above. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 284 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 284 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

285. Despite the coordinated ammo trading in the April 2020 contract on 

March 19, which, like the May 2020 contract on April 20, was set to expire the 

following day, Defendants Vega and Spires did not take steps to prevent the Vega 

Trading Defendants from engaging in substantially similar manipulative conduct 

on a much larger scale on April 20, 2020. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 285 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 285 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

286. Going well beyond the trading on March 19, on April 20, twelve Vega 

Trading Defendants, , engaged in coordinated trading and the Vega 
 189 

Trading Defendants doubled their volume of trades on April 20 (more than 

contracts on April 20 in the front month contract versus more than contracts 

on March 19 in the front month contract). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 286 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 286 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

287.

 that Defendants Vega and Spires revoked the Vega 

Trading Defendants’ access to Vega’s trading accounts. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

287 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

4. The VTDs Stalked Futures Contracts To Determine Those Most 

Vulnerable To Manipulation, And Then Blitz The Market By 

Making Trades In Unison To Move Prices. 

288. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that when 

Defendants Lunn stated shortly after the close on April 20th that 

, his reference to referred to the Vega Trading Defendants; his use 
 190 

of the word referred to the VTDs’ extensive ammo trades to drive down 

prices between 1pm and 1:30; and his reference to referred to the May 

Contract and, specifically, the last 30 minutes of trading therein. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 288 refers to discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 288 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

289. The VTDs’ of futures contracts to manipulate the final 

settlement prices or prices at other key times, was most likely to be successful in 

markets which were thinly traded and had less new entrants into the market. In 

such market conditions, the VTDs’ chances to trade in unison to successfully blitz 

the market and manipulate prices were much higher. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

289 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

290. The VTDs often had greater volumes of trades in contracts which, like 

the April WTI contract and the May WTI contract, were near the end of trading 

and less likely to have new entrants. Such contracts were more likely to have lower 

trade volume than earlier during the life of the contract when there were more new 

entrants into the market. 
 191 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 290 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 290 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

291. In addition to the April 2020 and May 2020 WTI contracts, the VTDs 

traded significant volumes of contracts in other contracts which were near 

expiration and likely to have less new entrants. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 291 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 291 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

292. For one example, seven of the VTDs (Defendants Paul Commins, 

Demetriou, Roase, Lunn, Younger, , and ) traded April ICE 

gasoil futures contracts on March 25, 2020 when the volume in that contract was 

approximately 1/3 of its trailing 30 day average. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 292 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks 
 192 

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

allegations contained in Paragraph 292 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

5. Defendants Vega And Spires Actively Facilitated The April 20th 

Manipulation, Profited Therefrom, And Specifically Intended 

That The Trades Which Vega Was Making In The May Contract 

Would Manipulatively Depress May Contract Prices 

293. Defendant Spires worked in and was 

See ¶¶ 114-117. 

Answer: Mr. Commins admits that Mr. Spires worked at 

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

falsity of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 293 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

294. According to a former compliance person at the IPE, the IPE should 

have had restrictions relating to TAS which made TAS manipulation on the IPE 

more difficult. See Oil Bonanza at U.K. Firm Casts Light on Price-Blind Trades, 

Liam Vaughan and Benjamin Bain (August 7, 2020), 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-07/oil-bonanza-at-u-k-firmcasts-spotlight-on-price-blind-trades. After leaving the IPE, such compliance 
 193 

person learned that the wrongdoing on the IPE in TAS manipulation was “blatant”. 

Id. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 294 refers to public articles, without 

conceding the accuracy of the content of those public articles, Mr. Commins 

asserts that those articles speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 294 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

295. In general, there are two types of compliance people. The first type 

consists of persons who seek to enforce compliance with the rules. The second 

type seek to facilitate the violation of the rules (here, manipulation) but use their 

compliance knowledge simultaneously to try to avoid adverse consequences from 

such violation. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

295 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

296. On and well before April 20th, the work of Defendants Spires and 

Vega in fulfilling their duties to achieve compliance with the rules and prevent 

manipulation, greatly facilitated manipulation and sought to avoid the adverse 
 194 

consequences from manipulation. And Defendant Spires and Vega consistently did 

not seek to prevent manipulation. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

296 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

297. With full knowledge of what had happened on the penultimate trading 

day of the prior expiring WTI contract (that is, the April Contract on March 19th, 

see above), Defendants Vega and Spires facilitated the manipulation of May 

Contract on its penultimate day of trading. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

297 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

298. Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 298 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 
 195 

contained in Paragraph 298 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

299. Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 299 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 299 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

300. Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 300 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 300 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 
 196 

301. Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 301 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 301 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

302. Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 302 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 302 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

303. Spires 
 197 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 303 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 303 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

304. Spires 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 304 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 304 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

305.

 Spires 

 Spires 
 198 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 305 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 305 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

306. But instead of sending emails or other written communications 

demanding explanations from the VTDs about what they were doing, Defendants 

Vega and Spires did nothing to stop the manipulation. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 306 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 306 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

307. On the contrary, consistent with the long train of facts beginning with 

the creation of Vega after more restrictive prohibitions of manipulation (including 

TAS manipulation) had been announced, the only affirmative actions in which 

Defendants Vega and Spires had engaged were those which facilitated the 
 199 

manipulation, e.g., In 

addition to failing to ask any questions of anyone, Defendants Vega and Spires did 

not, for example, restrain the amounts of trades that the VTDs could make. Nor did 

Vega and Spires take any other steps to avoid manipulation. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 307 refers to trading data or other 

discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for 

themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins 

denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 307 of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

308. Instead, Defendants Vega and Spires continued to allow the 

manipulation to succeed 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 308 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 308 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 200 

309. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege that the specific 

intention of Defendants Vega and Spires on April 20th was to facilitate the 

manipulation by the VTDs of the May Contract. Defendants Vega and Spires had a 

substantial financial motivation for doing so based on their profit shares of 

Defendants Thompson and Sutton. Defendants Spires and Vega could see in real 

time the large short positions that Defendants Thompson and Sutton were 

developing in the May Contract. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does 

allege that Defendants Vega and Spires had other financial reasons to facilitate the 

manipulation. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 309 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

310. In the vacuum of compliance conduct by Defendants Vega and Spires, 

GH Financials began to send trading alerts and ask questions on the afternoon of 

April 20th. Defendants Vega and Spires demonstrated no initiative or efforts 

additional to GH Financials’ questions to uncover a manipulation by the VTDs. 

Instead, Defendants Vega and Spires merely acted as a vessel to answer the 

questions put by GH Financials. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 310 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 
 201 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 310 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

311. But as the GH Financials questions were beginning, Defendants 

Spires sought to avoid detection of the manipulation and minimize the adverse 

consequences therefrom by telling Defendant Lunn (the ebullient Defendant who 

said that, after years of training, the VTDs had 

 Specifically, 

Defendant Lunn stated to and others on the morning of April 21st: 

Henry:

Henry “Normal”: 

[emphasis added] Vega_Mish_00021-25. Defendant positions in the May 

Contract had an extremely high minute to minute correlation with other VTDs, 

e.g., .965 (Defendant Lunn); .965 (Defendant Roase); .960 (Defendant Demetriou) 

and .946 (Defendant Pickering). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 311 refers to written discovery materials, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 311 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

312. Both “Henry” and “Henry Normal” are identified as being Defendant 

Henry Lunn in the Vega letter to the CME. Vega_MISH_000042691. Plaintiff has 
 202 

good grounds to believe and does allege that the explanation for the difference in 

display names may be that Defendant Lunn switched electronic devices; in any 

event, both Henry and Henry Normal signify that it is Henry Lunn talking. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 312 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 312 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

313. Plaintiff has good grounds to believe and does allege as follows. First, 

“Adrian” as used by Defendant Lunn above, refers to Adrian Spires. Plaintiff 

alleges that it was Adrian Spires who called Defendant Lunn and told him not to 

tell 

a. One basis for Plaintiff’s foregoing belief is that no , other 

than Adrian Spires, appears in any of the scores of names included in 

the production to Plaintiff. 

b. Another basis is the long train of conduct by Defendants Spires and 

Vega alleged below, which further supports Plaintiff’s allegations that 

Defendant Spires and Vega knew about and participated in 

Defendants’ manipulations. 
 203 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 313 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 313 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

314. Based on the foregoing, Defendant Spires’ statement to Defendant 

Lunn on April 20th, constitutes a further 

manipulative act intended to minimize the likelihood of detection of the VTDs 

manipulation on April 20th, and avoid the adverse consequences of such detection. 

Answer: Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

314 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

6. Defendant 

315. (a) First, Defendant admits that 

(b) Second, Defendant expressly admits 
 204 

VEGA_MISH_000042650. includes Defendant Spires and others at 

Vega. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 315 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins answers as follows. To the extent Paragraph 

315 refers to written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the 

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 315 of the Second 

Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

316. Defendant foregoing admitted 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 316 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins answers as follows. To the extent Paragraph 

316 refers to written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 
 205 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 316 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

317. That Defendant did, during this excellent opportunity to 

conspire, actually reach an agreement with the VTDs, is strongly corroborated by 

the following. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 317 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins answers as follows. To the extent Paragraph 

317 refers to written discovery materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials 

speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. 

Commins denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 317 of the 

Second Amended Complaint. 

318. Defendant May Contract trading has an extremely high minute 

to minute correlation of .989 to Defendant George Commins minute to minute 

positions. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 318 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

318 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 
 206 

319. Defendant minute to minute correlation on April 20th with 

Defendant Sutton’s minute to minute positions is an extraordinarily high .984. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 319 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

319 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

320. Defendant minute to minute correlation on April 20th with 

Defendant Younger’s minute to minute positions is an extraordinarily high .975. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 320 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

320 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

321. Defendant minute to minute correlation on April 20th with 

Defendant Pickering’s minute to minute positions is an extraordinarily high .971 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 321 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 
 207 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

321 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

322. Defendant minute to minute correlation on April 20th with 

Defendant Lunn’s minute to minute positions is a very high .944. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 322 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

322 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

323. The foregoing extremely high correlations are very contrary to 

independent conduct. They are extremely consistent with an agreement between 

 and the VTDs to depress May Contract prices. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 323 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 323 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

324. Also, Defendant also made increasing amounts of aggressor 

sales in the May Contract beginning at 11 am. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 324 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 
 208 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

324 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

325. Additionally, Defendant made aggressor, uneconomic “ammo” 

sales between 1 and 1:30pm including while the CME was entering stop trading 

orders to attempt to maintain orderly May Contract trading. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 325 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 

325 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those allegations. 

326. By joining other VTDs in making uneconomic aggressor “ammo” 

sales at increasingly lower prices between 1 and 1:30pm, Defendant and the 

other VTDs overcame the CME’s orderly-market trading halts, and greatly 

depressed May Contract prices. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 326 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 326 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 209 

327. Because Defendant trading pattern manipulatively sought to 

depress prices on a public market, and manipulation of a public market is more 

likely to succeed through an agreement with others than by one’s own trading, it is 

extremely plausible that Defendant and other VTDs were trading on April 

20th pursuant to an agreement to depress prices. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 327 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 327 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

7. Defendant Paul Sutton 

328. In addition to the parallel conduct in which Defendant Sutton and the 

other VTDs engaged, Sutton’s communications with other VTDs include at least 

48 text communications which Sutton initiated with Defendant George Commins 

on April 20, 2020 as they coordinated their trading in the May Contract. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 328 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 328 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 210 

329. As a result of such coordination, Defendant Sutton’s minute to minute 

positions on April 20th in the May Contract has an extraordinarily high correlation 

to Defendant George Commins’ minute to minute positions of 99.3%. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 329 refers to trade data or discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 329 of the Second Amended Complaint and, 

therefore, denies those allegations. 

330. Such Defendants’ high degree of coordination of their May Contract 

trading includes, for example, the following communications. 

a. At 3:15 am Chicago time (9:15 am London time) Sutton states to 

Defendant Commins “It’s all about wti now”. 

b. At 9:24 to 9:25 Chicago time, George Commins and Paul Sutton 
 211 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 330 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 330 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

331. Defendant Sutton 

Defendant Commins 

 Approximately two minutes after the request, at 12:58pm Chicago 

Time, Defendant Sutton sent Defendants Commins 

Sutton Defendant George Commons 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 331 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or 
 212 

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 331 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, 

denies those allegations. 

332. Also, Defendant Sutton’s minute by minute positions in the May 

Contract was 94.9% correlated with the overall minute to minute positions of 

Defendants Paul Commins, George Commins, Christopher Roase, Elliott 

Pickering, Aristos Demetriou, Connor Younger, Henry Lunn, and Matthew Rhys 

Thompson. 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 332 refers to written discovery 

materials, Mr. Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and 

denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 332 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

333. The extremely high correlations of Defendant Sutton’s trading with 

that of the other manipulators, combined with the numerous explicit 

communications coordinating his trading with Defendant Commins, is highly 

consistent with an agreement to manipulate May Contract prices and directly 

contrary to independent individual decision making by Defendant Sutton. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 333 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 213 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

334. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself, and all others similarly 

situated, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on behalf of the following Class: 

All persons and entities that purchased and/or sold during 

the period from at least April 20, 2020 through at least 

April 21, 2020 a May 2020 light sweet crude oil (WTI) 

futures contract traded on the NYMEX and/or the ICE. 

Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their 

officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, 

or affiliates and all federal governmental entities.25

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 334 

of the Second Amended Complaint, except Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff 

purports to bring its action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 

23(b)(3) on behalf of itself and as representative of the putative class as outlined in 

Paragraph 334 of the Second Amended Complaint. By way of further response, 

Mr. Commins denies that Plaintiff’s action can be maintained properly as a class 

action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) or any other 

applicable laws and rules. 

335. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

Due to the nature of the commerce involved, the members of the Class are 

25 Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of the Class in the class motion or 

otherwise. 
 214 

geographically dispersed throughout the United States. Plaintiff believes there are 

hundreds of members of the Class. 

Answer: Paragraph 335 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 335 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

336. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the 

Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of 

the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are: 

a. Whether Defendants combined, conspired, and agreed to manipulate 

and fix the prices of NYMEX and/or ICE WTI crude oil futures 

contracts in violation of the Sherman Act; 

b. whether Defendants manipulated NYMEX and/or ICE WTI crude oil 

futures contracts in violation of the CEA; 

c. whether such manipulation caused NYMEX and/or ICE WTI crude 

oil futures contracts to be artificial; 

d. whether such manipulation caused cognizable legal injury under the 

CEA; 
 215 

e. whether such injury or the extent of such artificiality may be 

established by common, class-wide means, including, for example, by 

regression analysis, econometric formula, or other economic tests; 

f. whether Defendants were unjustly enriched to the detriment of 

Plaintiff and the Class; and 

g. the operative time period and extent of Defendants’ foregoing 

violations. 

Answer: Paragraph 336 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 336 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

337. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the 

Class he seeks to represent. Plaintiff and members of the Class all sustained 

damages arising out of Defendant’s same course of unlawful conduct alleged 

herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 337 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 337 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 216 

338. Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect the interests of all members 

of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex commodity 

futures manipulation and antitrust class actions. Plaintiff has no interests that are 

adverse to or in conflict with other members of the Class. 

Answer: Paragraph 338 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 338 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

339. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class 

predominate over any questions which may affect only individual members. 

Answer: Paragraph 339 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 339 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

340. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all class members is 

impracticable. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the 

Class would impose heavy burdens upon the courts, and would also create a risk of 

inconsistent or varying adjudications of the questions of law and fact common to 

the Class. A class action, on the other hand, would achieve substantial economies 
 217 

of time, effort, and expense, and would assure uniformity of decision with respect 

to persons similarly situated. It would do so without sacrificing procedural fairness 

or bringing about other undesirable results. 

Answer: Paragraph 340 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 340 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

341. The interest of members of the Class in individually controlling the 

prosecution of separate actions is theoretical rather than practical. The Class has a 

high degree of cohesion, and prosecution of the action through representatives 

would be unobjectionable. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of 

this action as a class action. 

Answer: Paragraph 341 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 341 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

INJURY TO PLAINTIFF AND CLASS MEMBERS 

342. During the Class Period, Plaintiff and Class members transacted in 

WTI crude oil futures contracts at artificial prices and were deprived of a lawfully 

operating market. 
 218 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 342 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

343. Further, by reason of the alleged violations of the CEA and Sherman 

Act, Plaintiff and Class members sold at prices that were not what they would have 

paid in the absence of the extensive unlawful conduct alleged herein. As a result, 

Plaintiff and Class members have suffered a legally cognizable injury due to 

Defendants’ alleged violations of the CEA and Sherman Act. 

Answer: Paragraph 343 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 343 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

344. Defendants’ manipulation caused fluctuating amounts of artificiality 

in the prices of NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contracts beginning at least as early 

as April 20, 2020 and continuing until at least until April 21, 2020. 

Answer: Paragraph 344 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 344 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

345. The specific amounts of actual damages under the CEA and damages 

under the Sherman Act have not yet been determined because such determination 
 219 

will require discovery of the conduct of Defendants, the NYMEX, and other nonparties. 

Answer: The allegations in Paragraph 345 are a statement of relief that 

Plaintiff seeks in the Second Amended Complaint and do not constitute averments 

of fact, and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is or may 

be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff purports to seek 

damages but denies that Mr. Commins violated the Sherman Act, denies that 

Plaintiff or any purported class it seeks to represent are entitled to damages, and 

denies the remaining allegations and legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 345 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C. §1 et seq.) 

346. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 

347. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants (see ¶¶39-59 above), and John Doe Defendants 1-100 entered 

into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy in an unreasonable and unlawful 
 220 

restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act Antitrust Act, 15 

U.S.C. §1 et seq. (“Sherman Act”). 

Answer: Paragraph 347 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 347 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

348. Defendants combined, conspired, and agreed to manipulate and fix 

NYMEX WTI crude oil futures prices and ICE WTI crude oil futures prices during 

at least the Class Period. 

Answer: Paragraph 348 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 348 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

349. Defendants’ conspiracy to fix and manipulate prices was spectacularly 

successful and allowed Defendants to greatly profit from their violations of Section 

1 of the Sherman Act. 

Answer: Paragraph 349 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 349 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 221 

350. Defendants used instrumentalities of interstate commerce and 

adversely affected and restrained trade and commerce through their conspiracy and 

effects on prices. 

Answer: Paragraph 350 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 350 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

351. Defendants’ conspiracy to manipulate and fix the prices of NYMEX 

WTI crude oil futures contracts and ICE WTI crude oil futures contracts deprived 

Plaintiff and members of the Class of the ability to transact in a market free from 

manipulated and fixed prices. 

Answer: Paragraph 351 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 351 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

352. The conspiracy alleged herein is a per se violation of Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act. Alternatively, the conspiracy resulted in substantial anticompetitive 

effects in the NYMEX and ICE WTI crude oil futures markets. There is no 

legitimate business justification for, and no pro-competitive benefit caused by, 

Defendants’ conspiracy and overt acts taken in furtherance thereof. Any ostensible 
 222 

pro-competitive benefits are pretextual or could have been achieved by less 

restrictive means. 

Answer: Paragraph 352 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 352 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

353. As a direct, material, and proximate result of Defendants’ violations 

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Plaintiff and the Class suffered injury to their 

business and property, including but not limited to transacting at the artificial and 

fixed prices caused by Defendants, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Clayton 

Antitrust Act, 15 US.C. §12 et seq. (“Clayton Act”). 

Answer: Paragraph 353 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 353 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

354. Plaintiff and the Class seek treble damages for Defendants’ violations 

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. 

Answer: The allegations in Paragraph 354 are a statement of the relief 

that Plaintiff seeks in the Second Amended Complaint and do not constitute 

averments of fact, and therefore no response is required. Mr. Commins admits that 
 223 

Plaintiff purports to be seeking treble damages but denies that Mr. Commins 

violated the Sherman Act or Clayton Act, denies that Plaintiff or members of the 

putative Class are entitled to any damages in relation to this litigation, and denies 

the remaining allegations and legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 354. 

AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Manipulation In Violation Of The Commodity Exchange Act 

7 U.S.C. §1 et seq.) 

355. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 

356. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants, and John Doe Defendants 1-100 manipulated and conspired to 

manipulate the prices of NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contracts and ICE WTI 

crude oil futures contracts in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 

§1 et seq. (“CEA”). Defendant Vega Capital having held or otherwise financed the 

manipulative trades alleged herein for each of the Vega Trading Defendants, is 

fully responsible for the manipulation and conspiracy to manipulate alleged herein. 

Defendant Spires, as sole director of Defendant Vega Capital who, again, held or 
 224 

otherwise financed the manipulative trades alleged herein, is also fully responsible 

for the manipulation and conspiracy to manipulate alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 356 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 356 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

357. Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased and/or sold one or more 

NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contract and/or ICE WTI crude oil futures contract 

during the Class Period at artificial prices caused by Defendants and were injured 

as a result of Defendants’ intentional manipulation and conspiracy to manipulate 

the prices of those futures contracts in violation of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. 

Answer: Paragraph 357 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 357 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

358. In addition to the previously alleged all-time record deviation between 

May Contract prices and June WTI contract prices, there was also an all-time 

record deviation between May Contract prices and the June Brent futures contract 

price. 
 225 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 358 refers to market data, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief about the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 358 of the Second Amended Complaint and, therefore, denies those 

allegations. 

359. The spread between the May Contract and the Brent crude June 

futures contract price fell 80 standard deviations on April 20. This occurrence was 

extremely unlikely in a competitive market. But after Vega’s market power was 

removed, the spread between the May Contract and the June Brent contract 

snapped back to almost exactly the same level as it had been on April 17 (-9.32 on 

April 21 and -9.81 on April 17). 

Answer: To the extent Paragraph 359 refers to market data, Mr. 

Commins asserts that those materials speak for themselves and denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. Mr. Commins denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 359 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

360. Again, there was no fundamental supply and demand explanation for 

these unprecedented deviations in prices of the May Contract from their normal 

benchmark on April 20 followed by their unprecedented snapbacks to normality on 

April 21, 2020. 
 226 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 360 

of the Second Amended Complaint. 

361. The deleterious effects of the Vega Defendants’ concerted conduct 

and market power during April 20 were a proximate and substantial cause, as well 

as a contributing factor to the extraordinary widening of spreads on April 20. The 

removal of Vega’s concerted conduct and market power, was a substantial and 

proximate cause of the snapback in spreads on April 21. The supply-demand 

fundamentals were then again expressed in price levels, as they had been on April 

17. 

Answer: Paragraph 361 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 361 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

362. Defendants’ conduct and trading activity alleged herein constituted a 

manipulation of NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contract prices and ICE WTI 

crude oil futures contract prices in violation of Sections 9(a) and 22(a) of the CEA, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 13(a), 25(a). 

Answer: Paragraph 362 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 
 227 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 362 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

363. As result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and members of 

the Class have suffered actual damages and transacted at artificial prices to which 

they would not have been subject but for the unlawful conduct of Defendants as 

alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 363 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 363 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

364. Plaintiff and members of the Class are each entitled to damages for 

Defendants’ violations of the CEA alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 364 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff and members of 

the putative Class purport to be seeking damages but denies that they are entitled to 

any damages in relation to this litigation. 
 228 

AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Principal-Agent Liability In Violation Of The Commodity Exchange Act 

7 U.S.C. §1 et seq.) 

365. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 365 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 

366. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants, and John Doe Defendants 1-100 were principals, agents, coventurers and/or guarantors of one another. As agents, co-venturers and/or 

guarantors of one another, the Defendants engaged in a manipulative scheme and 

conspiracy to manipulate prices alleged herein on behalf of one another and with 

one another’s knowledge and authorization. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 366 relate to dismissed 

claims and states legal conclusions, therefore, no response is required. To the 

extent a response is requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 366 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 229 

367. Under Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §2(a)(1)(B), 

Defendants are liable for the acts of their agents. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 367 relate to dismissed 

claims and states legal conclusions, therefore, no response is required. To the 

extent a response is requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 367 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

368. Plaintiff and members of the Class are each entitled to damages for 

the violations of the CEA alleged herein. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 368 relate to dismissed 

claims and states legal conclusions, therefore, no response is required. To the 

extent a response is requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 368 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Aiding and Abetting Liability In Violation Of The Commodity Exchange Act 

D. U.S.C. §1 et seq.) 

369. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 
 230 

370. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants and John Doe Defendants 1-100 each played their component 

role and each knowingly aided, abetted, counseled, induced, and/or conspired or 

procured the violations of the CEA alleged herein. Defendants knew of the 

manipulative scheme and conspiracy to manipulate alleged herein, intended to help 

the other Defendants perpetrate such manipulative scheme and conspiracy to 

manipulate and committed one or mor acts in furtherance of such manipulative 

scheme and conspiracy to manipulate. 

Answer: Paragraph 370 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 370 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

371. Each of the Vega Trading Defendants utilized or shared trading 

accounts held in the name of Defendant Vega Capital London, Ltd. Defendant 

Spires is the sole director of Defendant Vega Capital. As the sole director of 

Defendant Vega Capital, the entity that held the trading accounts used to make the 

manipulative trades alleged herein, Defendants Spires and Vega Capital knew of 

the manipulative scheme and conspiracy to manipulate, intended to help the other 

Defendants perpetrate the manipulative scheme and conspiracy to manipulate 

(which generated large profits for the Defendants) and committed one or more acts 
 231 

in furtherance of such manipulative scheme and conspiracy to manipulate, 

including by holding or otherwise financing the manipulative positions and/or 

trades alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 371 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that he had a trading account 

with Vega Capital London, Ltd. and that Defendant Adrian Spires has served as a 

director of Vega Capital London, Ltd., and denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 371 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

372. Each of the Vega Trading Defendants aided and abetted the 

manipulative scheme and conspiracy to manipulate including by conspiring to sell 

large volumes of May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contracts for the 

purpose of depressing the price of such contract and the price of the May 2020 ICE 

WTI crude oil futures contract. 

Answer: Paragraph 372 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 372 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

373. Under Section 13 of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §13c (a), Defendants are 

liable for willfully intending to assist the manipulation. 
 232 

Answer: Paragraph 373 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 373 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

374. Plaintiff and members of the Class are each entitled to damages for 

the violations of the CEA alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 374 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff and members of 

the putative Class purport to be seeking damages but denies that they are entitled to 

any damages in relation to this litigation. 

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Manipulation In Violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§1, et seq. and Regulation 180.1(a)) 

375. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 
 233 

376. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants and John Doe Defendants 1-100 intentionally or recklessly, 

used or employed, attempted to use or employ or conspired to use or employ, one 

or more manipulative devices, schemes or artifices to defraud and/or engaged, 

attempted to engage, or conspired to engage, in one or more acts, practices, or 

courses of business, which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit in 

violation of the 6(c)(1) of the CEA, as amended, codified at 7 U.S.C. §9, and 

Section 22 of the CEA, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §25, and Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. 

§180.1. 

Answer: Paragraph 376 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 376 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

377. Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to depress prices of the NYMEX 

and ICE May 2020 WTI crude oil futures contracts by selling large volumes of the 

May 2020 NYMEX WTI crude oil futures contracts and by sending false signals to 

the market, including false price signals resulting from their manipulative and anticompetitive trading that was not reflective of supply and demand. Defendants’ 

cumulative net selling pressure, aggressor sales and later their “ammo” sales sent 
 234 

signals to the market of a frenzy of selling. Defendants did not disclose their 

manipulation to the market. 

Answer: Paragraph 377 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 377 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

378. Defendants’ conduct proximately caused injury to Plaintiff and other 

members of the Class who transacted in an artificial and manipulated market at 

artificial and manipulated prices during the Class Period. 

Answer: Paragraph 378 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 378 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

379. Plaintiff and members of the Class are each entitled to damages for 

the violations of the CEA alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 379 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff and members of 

the putative Class purport to be seeking damages but denies that they are entitled to 

any damages in relation to this litigation. 
 235 

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Principal-Agent Liability In Violation Of The Commodity Exchange Act 

7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. and Regulation 180.1(a)) 

380. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 380 relate to dismissed 

claims and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is 

requested or necessary, Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 

381. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants, and John Doe Defendants 1-100 were principals, agents, coventurers and/or guarantors of one another. As agents, co-venturers and/or 

guarantors of one another, the Defendants engaged in an intentional or reckless use 

of one or more manipulative devices, schemes or artifices to defraud and/or 

engagement in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business, which operated 

or would operate as a fraud or deceit in violation of the CEA as alleged herein on 

behalf of one another and with one another’s knowledge and authorization. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 381 relate to dismissed 

claims and states legal conclusions, therefore, no response is required. To the 
 236 

extent a response is requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 381 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

382. Under Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §2(a)(1)(B), 

Defendants are liable for the acts of their agents. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 382 relate to dismissed 

claims and states legal conclusions, therefore, no response is required. To the 

extent a response is requested or necessary, Mr. Commins denies the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 382 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

383. Plaintiff and members of the Class are each entitled to damages for 

the violations of the CEA alleged herein. 

Answer: The allegations contained in Paragraph 383 relate to dismissed 

claims and states legal conclusions, therefore, no response is required. To the 

extent a response is requested or necessary, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff and 

members of the putative Class purport to be seeking damages but denies that they 

are entitled to any damages in relation to this litigation. 

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Aiding and Abetting Liability In Violation Of The Commodity Exchange Act 

7 U.S.C. §1 et seq. and Regulation 180.1(a)) 

384. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 
 237 

Answer: Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 

385. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants and John Doe Defendants 1-100 each played their component 

role and each knowingly aided, abetted, counseled, induced, and/or conspired or 

procured the intentional or reckless use of one or more manipulative devices, 

schemes or artifices to defraud and/or engagement in one or more acts, practices, 

or courses of business, which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit in 

violation of the CEA as alleged herein. Defendants knew of the manipulative 

devices, schemes or artifices and/or the acts, practices or courses of business that 

operated as a fraud or deceit, intended to help the other Defendants perpetrate such 

manipulative devices, schemes or artifices and/or the acts, practices or courses of 

business that operated as a fraud or deceit and committed one or more acts in 

furtherance of same. 

Answer: Paragraph 385 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 385 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 238 

386. Each of the Vega Trading Defendants utilized or shared trading 

accounts held in the name of Defendant Vega Capital London, Ltd. Defendant 

Spires is the sole director of Defendant Vega Capital. As the sole director of 

Defendant Vega Capital, the entity that held the trading accounts used to make the 

manipulative trades alleged herein, Defendants Spires and Vega Capital knew of 

the manipulative devices, schemes or artifices and/or the acts, practices or courses 

of business that operated as a fraud or deceit, intended to help the other Defendants 

perpetrate same (which generated large profits for the Defendants) and committed 

one or more acts in furtherance of same, including by holding or otherwise 

financing the manipulative positions and/or trades alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 386 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that he had a trading account 

with Vega Capital London, Ltd. and that Defendant Adrian Spires has served as a 

director of Vega Capital London, Ltd., and denies the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 386 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

387. Each of the Vega Trading Defendant aided and abetted the 

manipulative devices, schemes or artifices and/or the acts, practices or courses of 

business that operated as a fraud or deceit, including by selling large volumes of 

the May 2020 NYMEX and ICE WTI crude oil futures contracts and by sending 
 239 

false signals to the market, including false price signals resulting from their 

manipulative and anti-competitive trading that was not reflective of supply and 

demand. 

Answer: Paragraph 387 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 387 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

388. Under Section 13 of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §13c(a), Defendants are liable 

for willfully intending to assist the manipulation. 

Answer: Paragraph 388 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 388 of the Second Amended Complaint. 

389. Plaintiff and members of the Class are each entitled to damages for 

the violations of the CEA alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 389 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiffs and members 

of the putative Class purport to be seeking damages but denies that they are 

entitled to any damages in relation to this litigation. 
 240 

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CLAIM 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

(Common Law Unjust Enrichment and Restitution/Disgorgement) 

390. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all the allegations in 

this complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 

Answer: Mr. Commins incorporates and reasserts the answers to all 

preceding paragraphs of the Second Amended Complaint as though set forth herein 

at length. 

391. Defendants Vega Capital London, Ltd., Adrian Spires, the Vega 

Trading Defendants and John Doe Defendants 1-100 greatly profited financially 

 from their unlawful acts alleged herein to the 

detriment of Plaintiff and members of the Class. In addition to being unlawful, 

Defendants’ acts were also unfair and inequitable such that permitting Defendants’ 

retention of their financial benefits resulting from their unlawful and unjust acts 

alleged herein violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good 

conscience. 

Answer: Paragraph 391 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins denies the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 391 of the Second Amended Complaint. 
 241 

392. Defendants’ unlawful, inequitable and unjust acts alleged herein 

caused Plaintiff and the members of Class to suffer injury, lose money and transact 

at artificial prices. Each Defendant should be required to pay the full amount of its 

own unjust enrichment to Plaintiff and members of the Class. 

Answer: Paragraph 392 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff and the 

members of the Class purport to be seeking damages but denies that they are 

entitled to any damages in relation to this action. 

393. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to the establishment of 

a constructive trust impressed on the benefits obtained by Defendants from their 

unjust enrichment and inequitable conduct alleged herein. 

Answer: Paragraph 393 of the Second Amended Complaint states legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. If and to the extent a response is or 

may be deemed to be required, Mr. Commins admits that Plaintiff and members of 

the putative Class purport to be seeking the establishment of a constructive trust 

but denies that they are entitled to any damages or other relief in relation to this 

action. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 
 242 

A. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants combined, conspired and agreed 

to manipulate and fix prices of NYMEX and ICE WTI crude oil futures 

contracts in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 et seq.; 

B. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants intentionally manipulated and 

conspired to manipulate NYMEX and ICE WTI crude oil futures prices, and 

caused such prices to become artificial, in violation of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §1 

et seq.; 

C. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants are liable for the acts of their 

agents for their manipulation and conspiracy to manipulate in violation of 

Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §2(a)(1)(B); 

D. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants aided and abetted the 

manipulation and conspired to manipulate in violation of Section 13 of the 

CEA, 7 U.S.C. §13c(a); 

E. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants intentionally or recklessly 

employed one or more manipulative devices, schemes or artifices to defraud 

and/or engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of business, which 

operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit in violation of section 6(c)(1) 

of the CEA, as amended, codified at 7 U.S.C. §9, and Section 22 of the 

CEA, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §25, and Regulation 180.1, 17 C.F.R. §180.1; 
 243 

F. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants are liable for the acts of their 

agents for their intentional or reckless employment of one or more 

manipulative devices, schemes or artifices to defraud and/or engagement in 

one or more acts, practices, or courses of business, which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit in violation of Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the CEA, 7 

U.S.C. §2(a)(1)(B); 

G. for a declaratory judgment that Defendants aided and abetted the intentional 

or reckless employment of one or more manipulative devices, schemes or 

artifices to defraud and/or engagement in one or more acts, practices, or 

courses of business, which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit in 

violation of Section 13 of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §13c(a); 

H. for an order impressing a constructive trust temporarily, preliminarily, 

permanently or otherwise on the full amount of each Defendant’s unjust 

enrichment, including the portions thereof that were obtained at the expense 

of Plaintiff and the Class; 

I. for 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 undersigned counsel as Class counsel; 
 244 

J. for a judgment awarding Plaintiff and the Class damages against Defendants 

for their violations of the Sherman Act, including treble damages, with 

prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; 

K. for a judgment awarding Plaintiff and the Class damages against Defendants 

for each of their violations of the CEA, together with prejudgment interest at 

the maximum rate allowable by law; 

L. for a judgment awarding Plaintiff and the Class damages equal to each 

Defendant’s unjust enrichment, including the portions thereof that were 

obtained at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class; 

M.for an award to Plaintiff and the Class for their costs of suit, including 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees and expenses; and 

N. for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Answer: Mr. Commins denies that Plaintiff and members of the Class 

are entitled to any relief. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 38(b) and otherwise, Plaintiff 

respectfully demands a trial by jury. 

Answer: The jury trial demand does not constitute an averment of fact 

and, therefore, no response is required. 
 245 

ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 

Mr. Commins reserves the right to assert any and all applicable defenses to 

the Plaintiff’s claims. Mr. Commins reserves the right to amend or otherwise 

supplement this pleading in following discovery in this action. Without limiting the 

generality of the foregoing and without regard to whether defenses set forth below 

are affirmative defenses within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), 

and without conceding that any such defenses must be set forth in its answer or 

assuming any burden of proof that it would not otherwise bear, Mr. Commins states 

as follows: 

FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class or classes have 

failed to state a claim against Mr. Commins upon which relief may be granted. 

SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes fail to allege sufficiently or otherwise properly define a relevant market 

for the purpose of asserting an antitrust claim.

THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred because they have not suffered any actual, cognizable antitrust 

injury or injuries. 
 246 

FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred because they failed to mitigate any injuries or damages 

allegedly sustained. 

FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class or classes lack 

standing to bring or maintain this action against Mr. Commins. 

SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred in whole or in part because their alleged damages, if any, are 

too speculative or remote, and because of the impossibility of the proof and 

allocation of those alleged damages. 

SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

Each of Plaintiff’s claims or causes of action is barred, in whole or in part, 

because Plaintiff’s claims are not properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

Each of Plaintiff’s claims or causes of action is barred, in whole or in part, 

because the named Plaintiff is not a proper class representative. 
 247 

NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of laches, estoppel, waiver, and/or 

unclean hands. 

TENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class or classes have 

not suffered any damages or injury resulting from any act or omission of Mr. 

Commins. 

ELEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred, in whole or in part, because there are one or more intervening 

and/or superseding causes of the claimed injuries, including but not limited to market 

circumstances outside Mr. Commins’ control. 

TWELFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged injuries or damages 

were not legally or proximately caused by any acts or omissions of Mr. Commins 

and/or were caused, if at all, solely and proximately by the conduct of third parties, 

including without limitation the prior intervening or superseding conduct of such 

third parties. 
 248 

THIRTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred, in whole or in part, because they are subject to mandatory 

arbitration provisions. 

FOURTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred, in whole or in part, because the conduct alleged did not 

unreasonably restrain trade. 

FIFTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred, in whole or in part, because it is preempted by the Commodity 

Exchange Act, including the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, which 

limits a private plaintiff’s remedy to actual damages. 

SIXTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes for unjust enrichment are barred, in whole or in part, because there is no 

direct relationship, trading or otherwise, between Defendants and Plaintiff or the 

putative class members. 

 
 249 

SEVENTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes for unjust enrichment are barred, in whole or in part, because they seek to 

recover damages that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this case and award of the 

judgment sought by Plaintiff would unjustly enrich Plaintiff. 

EIGHTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes under the Commodity Exchange Act are barred in whole or in part because 

Plaintiff cannot establish the required ability to influence prices. 

NINETEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes under the Commodity Exchange Act are barred in whole or in part because 

Plaintiff cannot establish an artificial price. 

TWENTIETH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE

The claims of Plaintiff and others claimed to be members of the alleged class 

or classes are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff cannot establish the 

requisite intent. 

TWENTY-FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE 

Mr. Commins adopts and incorporates by reference any and all other defenses 

asserted by any other Defendant to the extent he may share in such a defense. 
 250 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Mr. Commins respectfully requests that this Court: 

1. Enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff and any 

other claimants on all claims; 

2. Deny any motion to certify a class; 

3. Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice; 

4. Award Mr. Commins appropriate costs incurred to defend this action; 

and 

5. Grant such additional relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

 Mr. Commins demands a trial by jury on all issues that are triable by law to 

a jury. 

 
 251 

Dated: February 21, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Matthew L. Mazur 

Roger A. Burlingame 

Matthew L. Mazur 

DECHERT LLP 

160 Queen Victoria Street 

London EC4V 4QQ, United Kingdom 

Telephone: +44 20 7184 7000 

Roger.Burlingame@dechert.com 

Matthew.Mazur@dechert.com 

Steven E. Bizar 

Julia Chapman 

DECHERT LLP 

2929 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Telephone: (215) 994-2222 

Steven.Bizar@dechert.com 

Julia.Chapman@dechert.com 

Attorneys for Paul Commins