GAIN Capital takes Forex trader to Court for taking advantage of order execution error

https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/...or-taking-advantage-of-order-execution-error/

GAIN Capital takes Forex trader to Court for taking advantage of order execution error

Gain Capital Group, LLC d/b/a FOREX.COM has filed a complaint against one of its clients – Justin LeBlanc.

The complaint, seen by FX News Group, was filed on May 2, 2023, at the New York Southern District Court.

GAIN seeks to recover ill-gotten trading proceeds of $712,135.90 that the trader allegedly obtained by knowingly and wrongfully exploiting an obvious order execution error on GAIN’s trading platform. GAIN alleges that the defendant was unfairly and unjustly enriched at GAIN’s expense. Defendant’s conduct allegedly amounts to breach of his implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with GAIN, unjust enrichment and alternatively constitutes a mistake thus requiring disgorgement of the ill-gotten proceeds.

Justin LeBlanc was the account holder of FOREX.com Account No. 10278371. He used GAIN’s online Web Trading platform to place orders and trades for currency on April 1, 2021.

On April 1, 2021, a component of GAIN’s trading system responsible for the execution of resting Limit and Stop orders (“Resting Order Execution Module” or “ROEM”) temporarily lost subscription to the live rate feed for several foreign currency pairs. Because of this issue the Resting Order Execution Module stopped receiving live market prices. Instead, a stale price for several currency pairs became “stuck” in the ROEM.

This meant that in determining whether a customer Limit or Stop orders should be executed, the ROEM checked the order price specified by the customers against a stale, off-market price instead of against the live market price that continued to be published on the trading platform.

In case of Limit orders, such as those placed by LeBlanc, if the order price was “better” than the stale price stuck in ROEM, the order would be executed instantly at the stale price even though the live market price was completely different at the time.

Meanwhile, correct live market rates continued to be published on all FOREX.com trading platforms, including the Web Trading platform used by the Defendant. The order ticket window likewise displayed the correct live market price at all relevant times.

GAIN alleges that the defendant knew of the pricing error and took steps to take advantage of it. He started out by placing an entry Limit order to buy 1,003 USD/CAD at 05:06 AM GMT on April 1, 2021. On the order entry window, Defendant would have seen that the current USD/CAD market price was around 1.2587, which is approximately 18 points higher than his desired entry price of 1.25692. As such, at the time Defendant placed the order, he would have had no expectation that the order would be filled for some time, GAIN says.

His initial Limit order was filled instantly at the price of 1.25685, which was not published on the trading platform for dealing and was even more favorable to him than the order price he specified.

Mere seconds later, Defendant closed this position by manually clicking on the “Close” button in the “Positions” section of the trading interface.

The “Positions” section displays all the pertinent information about the position, including the entry price and the current market price. As such, when Defendant closed the position at the market price of 1.25877 he would have again seen that his Limit order, which only got executed seconds earlier, was filled at a price significantly different from the current market price displayed in the trading interface.

Immediately thereafter, the defendant once again opened the order entry window and placed another entry buy Limit order for 1,003 USD/CAD at the price of 1.25692, and he once again saw that the current market was around 1.2587. Yet despite his specified entry Limit price of 1.25692, the Limit order was again executed instantly at the price of 1.25685 which was not posted for dealing on the platform.

The correct live market prices were clearly obvious to the defendant, GAIN argues. He was logged onto the trading platform and was manually placing orders using an interface which at all times displayed the current market prices at which GAIN was prepared to deal.

Despite this, within a minute, two of his orders were obviously executed at an identical price that was significantly different from the posted market prices approved for dealings on the platform.

Over the next 4 minutes, LeBlanc placed an additional 9 entry Limit orders to buy USD/CAD with a specified price of 1.25692, all of which were instantly executed at the price of 1.25685 because the correct market price posted on the platform continued to be at least 18 points higher.

Instead of ceasing his trading or contacting GAIN to inquire into what was happening, he began to ramp up his order size.

Over the course of approximately 60 minutes, LeBlanc placed a total of 184 entry Limit orders and, ramped up his order, size exponentially from 1,003 USD/CAD to 5,000,000 USD/CAD. Every single one of his entry Limit orders was executed at an identical, erroneous price of 1.25685, which was significantly lower than the live market price he could clearly see on his trading interface each time he manually placed a Limit order and each time he manually closed the resulting position at the correct market price.

At the start of the April 1, 2021 trading session, LeBlanc had a balance of $398.17 in his GAIN account and had averaged around 3 trades per day before April 1, 2021. GAIN claims that by exploiting a manifest error affecting the execution of Limit orders in his account, he amassed $712,135.90 in illegitimate profits after placing 184 trades over the course of a single hour.

Because GAIN was the counterparty to all of these trades, GAIN was harmed in the amount of $712,135.90 as a result of defendant’s allegedly improper trading activity on April 1, 2021.

GAIN requests that the Court find in favor of GAIN and against the defendant providing the following relief:

  • Damages in an amount to be proven at trial including but not limited to the $712,135.90 of Ill-Gotten Proceeds, together with interest and any other incidental or consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
  • Alternatively, based on the Second Cause of Action, rescission of the Trades and disgorgement of the Ill-Gotten Proceeds,
  • Reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Agreement.
The trader made rigth thinks he took a profit.
Crook FOREX.COM {who is sister crook from FXCM }is clearly looser for costumer favor. Broker is always crook.But they made yourself funny because they dont want to paid.Regular goofy Crook.Bravo trader you took profit!Broker must to paid.
 
Last edited:
Lol. How can they be "ill-gotten gains" when the guy was executing orders on his counterparty's platform, using their software, at prices which they quoted, orders submitted via their system, and fills which they gave him?

They should be laughed out of court. It's a bucket shop trying to welsh out on some trades.
That's all it is.
 
Like I explained before, in retail forex, there is NO centralized exchange to determine what the "market price" is supposed to be. The broker is free to quote whatever price it wants. For those market makers like Gain Capital who trade against traders, delayed quotes and requoting is very common. That's how they make money off traders so that could very likely be a delayed quote or a requote but somehow it worked in the trader's favour. How is a trader supposed to know? If Gain Capital is not even responsible for their own system according to the trade agreement how is the trader responsible for Gain Capital's system?? LOL That is even more absurd.

Correct. FX is NOT a centralized exchange. An OTC network (not ONE place) where typically the Big Boyz play around. Primarily central banks, Tier1/Tier2 and corporates/asset managers/nasty hedge funds and low latency HFT firms.

Gain capital behaves like a 2yr old child. They earn the $700k in a few minutes of "stressful work" (caugh, caugh, caugh).
 
Interesting case. If it lasted for 1 hour I guess there were many traders who exploited this pricing error. Many brokers would simply cancel that profit, idk why there is a talk about lawsuit.
 
Here is the latest response from the defendant, Justin LeBlanc, the trader that made $700K+ profit in Gain Capital's own system filed on July 10, 2023:

https://fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/retail-forex/forex-trader-responds-to-gain-capital-complaint/

Gain Capital is supposed to file complaints ONE year after the transaction if they feel it's not right but they waited 2 years + 1 month to finally file a complaint so based just on that, the case should be dismissed plus the trader stated he basically traded according to the price that was displayed in the platform and according to the user agreement, pretty much the same as how we stated in this thread here. LOL

The case is ongoing and you can read about what's happening with the case here: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv03699/598159

I hope the judge dismisses the case right away and just let the trader enjoy his profit instead of wasting more taxpayers' money.
 
It doesn't matter what business you're in or who your broker is (I know nothing of Gain Capital) but the key to the relationship between the two parties is the contract, as detailed in the firm'sTerms & Conditions.

The T&C's from my own broker state that the client is in breach of contract if they exploit a fault, loophole or error in their software, system or platforms.

If I hadn't liked those T&C's, I had the option to go to another broker. But if I breach my contract with the broker I signed with I deserve what's coming.
 
It doesn't matter what business you're in or who your broker is (I know nothing of Gain Capital) but the key to the relationship between the two parties is the contract, as detailed in the firm'sTerms & Conditions.

The T&C's from my own broker state that the client is in breach of contract if they exploit a fault, loophole or error in their software, system or platforms.

If I hadn't liked those T&C's, I had the option to go to another broker. But if I breach my contract with the broker I signed with I deserve what's coming.

Yeah but the trader didn't because from the way the price is provided to the trader by the broker, there is no way the trader would know that it's a fault, loophole or error otherwise how are we going to trade, always trade the most expensive/cheap for our buy/sell trade? Otherwise they could all be a fault, loophole or error? That's ridiculous!!
 
Yeah but the trader didn't because from the way the price is provided to the trader by the broker, there is no way the trader would know that it's a fault, loophole or error otherwise how are we going to trade, always trade the most expensive/cheap for our buy/sell trade? Otherwise they could all be a fault, loophole or error? That's ridiculous!!
If the client does not like the T&C's they should not sign the contract. Likewise if they don't understand them.

If T&C's are incapable of being rationally interpreted, the usual principle in law is that a dispute arising would be resolved in favour of the signatory of the contract, not its authors.
 
If the client does not like the T&C's they should not sign the contract. Likewise if they don't understand them.

If T&C's are incapable of being rationally interpreted, the usual principle in law is that a dispute arising would be resolved in favour of the signatory of the contract, not its authors.

What happened is well covered by the terms in the contract if this is what you are referring to as "T&C". It's just that the broker is trying to weasel out it because for once, the client is making money and the broker doesn't like it. LOL
 
What happened is well covered by the terms in the contract if this is what you are referring to as "T&C". It's just that the broker is trying to weasel out it because for once, the client is making money and the broker doesn't like it. LOL
When you say "weasel out" you make it sound like the broker is trying to do something not allowed by contract law. This isn't proven.

The broker does not have to prove what the client was thinking: their position can only be based on what they can show the client did. This is the way good law works.
 
Back
Top