Plaintiffs cite to CEA Section 4(b), 7 U.S.C. § 6(b), pursuant to CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b), and CFTC Rule 166.3, 17 C.F.R. § 166.3 in support of their control person allegations. Section 4(b) relates to the regulation of foreign transactions by the CFTC. 7 U.S.C. § 6(b).

seq. proscribes Fraud by Commodities Trading Advisors such as the Maxwells. 7 U.S.C.§ 6(o) has two Sections proscribing Fraud. 18 The difference between Section §4(o)(l) and §4(o)(2) clearly demonstrates that Congress understood that the proscription against fraudulent conduct by CTAs and their agents was not just limited to registered CTAs, but related to all persons and/or associated persons whether registered or not.

61 7 U.S.C.§6(a)-(b) ................................................................................................................................. 47 7 U.S.C.§6(o) ....................................................................................................................................... 58 7 u.s.c. §7 ...................................................................................................................................... 50,51 7 U.S.C.§7(d)(2)(A)(iii) ...................................................................................................................... 68 7 U.S.C.§ 9(1) ...................................................................................................................................... 43 7 U.S.C.§ 13-c(a) ............................................................................................................................ 58,70 7 u.s.c. § 25 ........................................................................................................................................ 43 7 U.S.C. § 25(a)(1) ..............................................................................

See 7 U.S.C. § 9 (Section 6(c) discussing the ability of the “Commission” to bring an action for actual or attempted manipulation); 7 U.S.C. § 13(b) (Section 6(d) discussing the ability of the “Commission” to enter a cease-and-desist order against any person engaged in actual or attempted manipulation). See also the Master Fund’s brief at Section I(A). Case 1:07-cv-06377-SAS-HBP Document 71 Filed 04/28/2008 Page 15 of 40 -7- 2) they made, through the defendants, any contract or sale of any commodity for futur

See 7 U.S.C. § 9 (Section 6(c) discussing the ability of the “Commission” to bring an action for manipulation of attempted manipulation); 7 U.S.C. § 13(b) (Section 6(d) discussing the ability of the “Commission” to enter a cease-and-desist order against any person engaged in manipulation or attempted manipulation). See also Section I(A) of Amaranth LLC’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss which is incorporated by reference.

This accrual date is as stated within six years of the earliest termination date of Paul Thomas representation of Plaintiffs sometime in 2012 or thereafter, and thus the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim is timely. The Proposed Breach of Fiduciary Claim includes a claim that Paul Thomas, -10- Case 1:16-cv-05508-VSB Document 226 Filed 09/28/18 Page 14 of 22 purposefully failed to submit a claim on behalf of the Claimants against Perry Comeau for his violations of the Anti-Fraud Provisions ofthe Commodities Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §6, Et. Seq. due to Perry Comeau's allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs about the safety of the Investments. Alternatively, Paul Thomas also breached his fiduciary obligation toward the other Claimants because he never offered into evidence the testimony of his other client Perry Comeau which would have established PFG's liability to the Customer class based on a violation ofNF A By-law 1101, SAC ~~685, 686, 688.

This accrual date is as stated within six years of the earliest termination date of Paul Thomas representation of Plaintiffs sometime in 2012 or thereafter, and thus the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim is timely. The Proposed Breach of Fiduciary Claim includes a claim that Paul Thomas, -10- Case 1:16-cv-05508-VSB Document 224 Filed 09/28/18 Page 14 of 22 purposefully failed to submit a claim on behalf of the Claimants against Perry Comeau for his violations of the Anti-Fraud Provisions ofthe Commodities Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §6, Et. Seq. due to Perry Comeau's allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations to the Plaintiffs about the safety of the Investments. Alternatively, Paul Thomas also breached his fiduciary obligation toward the other Claimants because he never offered into evidence the testimony of his other client Perry Comeau which would have established PFG's liability to the Customer class based on a violation ofNFA By-law 1101, SAC ~~685, 686,688.

The Commission likewise gave no consideration to the costs the Rule will impose on SEFs, and immediately on swap trading platforms, by incentivizing DCMs to convert financial swaps into substantially equivalent financial “swap futures” contracts, which can only be listed on DCMs. 7 U.S.C. § 6(a). Altogether, the Commission devoted only two pages in the Federal Register to discussing the costs and benefits of Rule 39.

3, in support of their control person allegations. Section 4(b), 7 U.S.C. § 6(b), relates to the CFTC’s regulation of foreign transactions, and Plaintiffs appear to have mistakenly cited this section, in lieu of Section 4b, 7 U.S.C. § 6b, the antifraud provision of the CEA. Section 4b does not create a private right of action for controlling person liability.

5 According to the allegations in the SAC, once customer monies were transferred from the JPMorgan customer segregated Account into the US Bank Account, 1845, then these customer monies were simply handed-over to Wasendorf, Sn. Regulators have alleged these transfers to constitute criminal fraud in violation of the Anti-Fraud Provisions of the Commodities Exchange Act 7 U.S.C.§ 6(d)(b) and 17 C.P.R. 1.20.