CFTC v. Adam Flavin and Peter Grady (price manipulation, 2018)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (cftc-two-commodity-traders-price-manipulation-2018) by email

In September 2018 the CFTC issued separate orders settling charges against wheat traders Adam Flavin and Peter Grady for attempting to manipulate CBOT wheat futures and options prices in March 2015 by cancelling 250 wheat shipping certificates to signal false demand. Flavin pays $125,000 and is banned from trading for four years; Grady pays $250,000 and is banned for nine months.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$375k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$375k

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on September 26, 2018 as release 7804-18. The respondents named are Adam Flavin and Peter Grady (2 individuals, 0 entities).

Each order finds the two, with others, coordinated the certificate cancellations to raise the value of their wheat spread and option positions. The orders were issued the same day as the order against their employer. This library tags the matter as price manipulation.

The conduct is recorded against futures and options, with CBOT, CME identified in the release.

The relief recorded in our data is civil monetary penalties of $375,000 ($125,000 for Flavin and $250,000 for Grady). Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2018-09-26 CFTC release published

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• CFTC release

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.