Two companies, going by TFS-ICAP Ltd and TFS-ICAP LLC, have both failed in their attempt to have the CFTC complaint laid against them, be dismissed. The Judge who made the ruling, Victor Marrero of the New York Southern District Court, signed the order that nixed the companies’ attempts to wiggle out of the CFTC actions.

Requests For Dismissal Official Nixed

The complaint leveled by the CFTC claims that the brokers of both TFS-ICAP offices, situated in the UK and the US, both deceived and attempted to deceive its clients. The deception came in the form of portraying fake bids and offers to them, as well as counterfeit trades within the forex options market. These actions go by monikers like “printing trades” and “flying prices,” and the CFTC claims that these practices serve as a cornerstone of TFS-ICAP’s business model.

It’s been a few months since both TFS-ICAP companies officially opposed the complaint that the CFTC had leveled against them, citing various technicalities and minor faults and describing it as deficiencies. Thanks to Judge Marrero signing a Court order on the 21st of January, 2020, these arguments have been officially deemed inadequate in the eyes of the law. With the arguments having failed to dismiss the complaints of the CFTC, the regulator will have a chance to pursue it further.

Citing Technicalities and Minor Details

TFS ICAP argued that the complaint failed to allege various facts that show the company’s activities with non-US market participants made a significant, direct impact on US commerce. The Court, in turn, explained that the CFTC’s explanations were satisfactory when it comes to the relief it desires from TFS-ICAP. In particular, the CTF is requesting assistance related to a time period wherein TFS-ICAP brokered various FX options to US clients.

Furthermore, the Judge had ruled that the CFTC was compliant with Rule 9(b) in its complaint. The CFTC alleged specific occurrences off printing trades and flying prices. In particular, the charge covers instances that allegedly happened on the 15th of April, 2015, the 12th of May, 2015, and the 20th of July, 2015. There was also an inclusion of an instance of a flown price that occurred on the 4th of April, 2014.

Proper Defence Rights

The entire purpose of Rule 9(b)’s existence is to ensure that the defendant is provided with fair notice of the claim laid out by the plaintiff. As the Judge had explained, the CFTC had given ample information within its complaint about the defendants to be capable of a response that would be appropriate, should the company refute these claims.