Company: EUO
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001193125-25-065647
Chunk: 325

Company: ProShares Trust II
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form: 424B3
Chunk 325
---
 Individual actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities also were consolidated into the LIBOR MDL. The plaintiffs seek compensatory

-187

damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (LIBOR MDL), (i) granting a motion by the putative class of purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments for leave to amend their complaint; (ii) denying the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of portions of the court’s March 29, 2013 order; (iii) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss claims based on contracts purchased between May 2008 and April 2009; and (iv) denying the motion by Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., and certain other defendants to dismiss unjust enrichment and contract-based claims of the putative class of OTC purchasers of derivative instruments. Additional information concerning this consolidated action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). On September 17, 2013, the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities filed an appeal in the Second Circuit of Judge Buchwald’s March 29, 2013 and August 23, 2013 orders. The Schwab plaintiffs filed a separate appeal in the Second Circuit on September 24, 2013. The Second Circuit dismissed the appeals on October 30, 2013, and denied the plaintiffs’ motions to reconsider dismissal on December 16, 2013. On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the Schwab plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. with respect to the Second Circuit’s dismissal of their appeal. On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to the Second Circuit’s opinion, the plaintiffs had a right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for consideration of the plaintiffs’ appeal on the merits. Following the remand, plaintiffs-appellants submitted their opening brief on May 20,