1. Whether the Seventh Circuit wrongly expanded
the doctrine of implied conflict preemption by
holding that an obstacle could form the basis of preemption even if the obstacle is uncertain
to occur and the obstacle will not prevent a
regulator from fulfilling its duties.

2. Whether the Commodities Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (the "CEA"), impliedly preempts state law tort claims of general application
brought by an unregulated person against the
National Futures Association (the "NFA") when such unregulated person has no statutory remedy
under the CEA and the state law claim would not
create a concrete definable and definite obstacle or otherwise conflict with the administration of
the NFA's regulatory activities.

3. Whether the regulatory actions of the NFA,
a federally authorized Self-Regulatory Organization (an "SRO"), can preempt state law
to the extent the manner of the SRO's regulatory
action is not expressly prescribed in detail by the grant of regulatory authority from the federal
agency.

Whether the Seventh Circuit wrongly expanded the doctrine of implied conflict preemption