Amaranth Advisors' investors included pension funds, endowments, banks and brokerage firms including Institutional Fund of Hedge Funds at Morgan Stanley. Pension fund clients included San Diego County Employees Retirement Association. On July 25, 2007, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) charged Amaranth and Hunter with attempting to manipulate the price of natural gas futures. Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission charged Amaranth, Hunter and trader Matthew Donohoe with market manipulation. The CFTC and the FERC had conflicting versions of what Hunter did, and are currently competing over jurisdiction. In 2014 Hunter settled with the CFTC, paying a $750,000 fine and accepting a ban from trading all CFTC-regulated natural-gas products. On January 22, 2010, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission administrative law judge ruled that Hunter violated the Commission's Anti-Manipulation Rule. Judge Carmen Cintron found that "Hunter intentionally manipulated the settlement price of the at-issue natural gas futures contracts. His trading was specifically designed to lower the NYMEX price in order to benefit his swap positions on other exchanges." The decision is subject to review by the Commission. In November 2007 Amaranth Advisors filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan claiming $1 billion in damages on the grounds that the bank interfered in the company's efforts to avoid collapse after natural-gas trades losses in 2006. The suit claimed that JP Morgan as Amaranth Advisors's clearing broker use their position to prevent Amaranth Advisors from derisking their exposure from its natural-gas derivatives portfolio by preventing the portfolio from being sold to first Goldman Sachs and later Citadel LLC. In December 2012, the New York State Court of Appeals upheld an earlier dismissal of the case. During the collapse of Amaranth Advisors, Centaurus was credited as being one of the major players on the other side of their position. During the week of September 11, 2006 one week before clients were notified of loses Amaranth Advisors was seeking new investors and marketing their fund as being up 25 percent for the year. "The New York Times" reported that Amaranth Advisors said it was a multi-strategy fund though acted "like an energy and commodities fund. When it bet big on natural gas and lost, it was apparent that it was neither multistrategy nor particularly well hedged" and also that in Amaranth Advisors' case ""multistrategy" seems to have been a misnomer at the fund."