Company: EUO
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001193125-25-065647
Chunk: 242

Company: ProShares Trust II
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form: 424B3
Chunk 242
---
 or otherwise concluded investigations relating to benchmark interest rates with the investigating authorities. UBS was granted conditional leniency or conditional immunity from authorities in certain jurisdictions, including the Antitrust Division of the DOJ and the Swiss Competition Commission (WEKO), in connection with potential antitrust or competition law violations related to certain rates. However, UBS has not reached a final settlement with WEKO, as the Secretariat of WEKO has asserted that UBS does not qualify for full immunity. LIBOR and other benchmark-related civil litigation: A number of putative class actions and other actions are pending in the federal courts in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of parties who transacted in certain interest rate benchmark-based derivatives. Also pending in the US and in other jurisdictions are a number of other actions asserting losses related to various products whose interest rates were linked to LIBOR and other benchmarks, including adjustable rate mortgages, preferred and debt securities, bonds pledged as collateral, loans, depository accounts, investments and other interest-bearing instruments. The complaints allege manipulation, through various means, of certain benchmark interest rates, including USD LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, Yen LIBOR, EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR and seek unspecified compensatory and other damages under varying legal theories. USD LIBOR class and individual actions in the US: In 2013 and 2015, the district court in the USD LIBOR actions dismissed, in whole or in part, certain plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, federal racketeering claims, Commodity Exchange Act claims, and state common law claims, and again dismissed the antitrust claims in 2016 following an appeal. In 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal in part and

-150

reversed in part and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit, among other things, held that there was personal jurisdiction over UBS and other foreign defendants. Separately, in 2018, the Second Circuit reversed in part the district court’s 2015 decision dismissing certain individual plaintiffs’ claims and certain of these actions are now proceeding. In 2018, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in the USD class actions for claims pending against UBS, and plaintiffs sought permission to appeal that ruling to the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit denied the petition to appeal. In 2020, an individual action was filed in the Northern District of California against UBS and numerous other banks alleging that the defendants cons