Last week, Michael Coscia, the first person convicted under the anti-spoofing provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, petitioned the US federal appeals court that recently upheld his conviction and sentencing for a re-hearing. Mr. Coscia claimed that the three-judge panel that upheld his conviction misapplied its “own newly-articulated test” for distinguishing lawful and unlawful trading — mainly that “legal trades are cancelled only following a condition subsequent to placing the order, whereas orders placed in a spoofing scheme are never intended to be filled at all.” Mr. Coscia claimed that since all his allegedly layered orders were cancelled following conditions subsequent to his order placement, the panel’s application of its new rule to him jeopardizes the trading by all traders who might place conditional orders of any kind, including fill-or-kill or stop-limit orders. Mr. Coscia seeks a re-hearing before all the judges of the federal appeals court that sits in Chicago. (Click here for background on the federal appeals court’s ruling in Coscia in the article “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Conviction and Sentencing of First Person Criminally Charged for Spoofing Under Dodd-Frank Prohibition” in the August 7, 2017 edition of Betwee