The real interesting news here apart from the amusing stuff is the defense theory because we have a similar argument being made by a different broker in a simialar case. The defense argument goes like this: Only EU customers have a contract with that of our legal entities which is regulated by the CySEC. All other customers have a contract with a different entitly, apparently" incorporated" which does not mean "regulated" in some other country. Claimants should be very cautious to be able to show that this is not the case, because as sad as it is, this is a very good point. At least one broker has modified its frontpage accordingly. If you view it from an EU-IP is states that their Cyprus-entity does not assume any liability for their third-country entity and if you view it from a non-EU-IP it states that their third country entity does not assume liability for their Cy-entity and it will be the claimant who has to show with whom he contracted or by whom he fells to be defrauded.