I've been robbed

it is clearly defined. every exchange has rules in writing on their website. its up to the trader to know what the rules are. 60% threshold was very generous.

here is an example:
http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/CEE_Policies_Email_Submission_Guidelines.pdf


Numerical Guidelines
Under the new Numerical Guidelines, an execution may be found to be clearly erroneous only if the price of the transaction to buy is greater, or less in the case of a sale, then the reference price by an amount that equals or exceeds the numerical guidelines for a particular transaction category. (A mistake in entering an order or a quote, or that the firm failed to pay attention to or update a quote, may not be sufficient to determine that a transaction was clearly erroneous.)
The Exchanges will generally use the consolidated last sale as the Reference Price to determine whether an execution is clearly erroneous. The execution time of the transaction under review determines which Numerical Guideline is applied. The chart below outlines the details.
The Numerical Guidelines are as follows:
Reference Price: Consolidated Last Sale
Regular Trading Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines (Subject transaction’s % difference from the Consolidated Last Sale):
After Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines (Subject transaction’s % difference from the Consolidated Last Sale):
Greater than $0.00 up to and including $25.00
10%
20%
Greater than $25.00 up to and including $50.00
5%
10%
Greater than $50.00
3%
6%
Multi-Stock Event – Filings involving five or more securities by the same ETP Holder will be aggregated into a single filing
10%
10%
Leveraged ETF/ETN securities
Regular Trading Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines multiplied by the leverage multiplier (e.g. 2x)
After Hours of the Exchange Numerical Guidelines multiplied by the leverage multiplier (e.g. 2x)

 

for fucks sake, it's been defined for YEARS! read the damn exchange rules and policies.

 

In my opinion yes, the market had ceased to function as it was designed. 60% was a gift.

 

I found a 1-min chart, but trades below 60% are not shown. It does look like a mistake, too bad for OP...

 

There is one interesting point in this story.
The broker/exchange has manipulated customer's account. They have created a short position despite that the owner of the account had no intention to make a short trade. And this is already legal problem.
Even if the exchange decides to bust a trade according to their very questionable rules, they should take shares back and refund client's account with a price payed for a stock. In this case it woud be a fair deal and nobdy will be punished.

 

We don't know that for sure and we certainly didn't know it at the time, may be it did function very well.

 

This happens all the time. It is the traders responsibility to determine whether the trade will stand prior to closing the position.

 

Based on experience trading through Asia in 97, LTCM in 98, dotcom in 01, mini crash 07, real crash 08...I can state in my opinion the market was definitely not functioning as it was designed, and any regulator is also going to see it that way.

 

hedge the trade with futures next time

 

Huh?

So when you get filled long on PWV at $0.20, then short an equivalent amount of futures? Once PWV gets busted, you just got screwed on your "hedge" because you got a crap futures fill on that downdraft.