Foreign exchange dealer responds to GAIN Capital grievance

Foreign exchange dealer Justin LeBlanc, who has been accused of unjust enrichment from an order execution error on FOREX.com, a platform operated by GAIN Capital, has responded to the grievance towards him.

In his response, submitted on July 10, 2023 on the New York Southern District Courtroom, LeBlanc argues that GAIN Capital’s claims towards him haven’t any benefit.

This case arises from a single buying and selling session the place LeBlanc positioned orders and trades for forex on April 1, 2021 utilizing GAIN’s on-line buying and selling platform. The grievance alleges that after 184 trades over the course of a single hour”Mr. LeBlanc amassed $712,135.90 however that stale costs grew to become caught in GAIN’s buying and selling platform and that Mr. Leblanc ought to have recognized about them and voluntarily ceased buying and selling.

Finally, the Criticism seeks to carry LeBlanc liable for its personal determination to simply accept and course of every of the 184 trades made by LeBlanc on April 1, 2021, and to claw again all the income he earned from that buying and selling session.

The defendant argues that this case should have been commenced “inside one (1) 12 months after the reason for any such Continuing shall have arisen” with out exception, in step with the shopper settlement he had signed with GAIN. GAIN’s causes of motion all focus on Mr. LeBlanc’s buying and selling throughout a single hour on April 1, 2021. Thus, to be well timed, Plaintiff needed to convey its claims by April 1, 2022. GAIN, nonetheless, filed this motion on Might 2, 2023—over 13 months too late. For that reason, the Criticism have to be dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant goes on to say that GAIN’s claims are additionally independently poor.

Part 3.4 of the Settlement warns: “Though a Spot Fee is specified upon entry of sure forms of Orders” restrict Orders could also be “stuffed at . . . considerably completely different Spot Fee[s].” And Part 4.1 offers “FOREX.com makes no guarantee, specific or implied, that Bid Costs and Ask Costs characterize prevailing bid costs and ask costs.”

Thus, allegations that Mr. LeBlanc someway breached the Covenant as a result of his bid costs weren’t questioned after GAIN accepted them at non-prevailing charges fails to state a declare as a result of this very conduct was expressly anticipated by the Settlement.

Additional, web page 11 of the Settlement warns Mr. Leblanc that he shouldn’t “use or depend on [FOREX.com’s] Buying and selling Instruments.” But GAIN now claims that Mr. LeBlanc breached the Covenant by doing precisely what the Settlement tells him to do–i.e., not counting on FOREX.com’s stay market costs displayed on its buying and selling instruments.

The lawsuit continues on the New York Southern District Courtroom.