Company: SVIX
Filing Date: 2025-09-16
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001213900-25-087932
Chunk: 167

Company: VS Trust
Filing Date: 2025-09-16
Form: 424B3
Chunk 167
---
 pre -hedgingactivity noted above for certain contracts. The BCC also found that StoneX and SX Markets may have violated Exchange Rule 4.01(a) by failing to diligently supervise its employee’s block trade activity and compliance with Exchange Rules. Lastly, the BCC found that SX Markets may have violated Exchange Rule 4.07(c) by misreporting the execution time of certain block trades and submitting them beyond the 15 -minutereporting window, and that StoneX and SX Markets may have violated Exchange Rule 21.04 by failing to timely produce documents, books, or records requested by Compliance staff during the investigation of this matter. StoneX and SX Markets were required to disgorge (jointly and severally) $225,607 and were fined (jointly and severally) $425,000. ICE Case 2019 -030 A subcommittee of the Exchange’s Business Conduct Committee determined that in numerous instances between February 2019 and May 2020, StoneX Financial Inc. (“StoneX”), formerly INTL FCStone Financial Inc., may have violated Exchange Rule 6.15(a) by failing to submit to the Exchange daily large trader reports on reportable customer positions and Exchange Rule 4.01(a) by failing to have proper processes for reporting large trader positions. StoneX paid a fine of $75,000. Straits CME Case 23 -CH-2327 On January18, 2024, the Clearing House Risk Committee (“CHRC”) of the CME found that Straits was inaccurately reporting their Customer Gross Margin (“CGM”) file at the account controller level and not at the level of individual customers. The CHRC thereby concluded that Straits violated CME Rule 980.G and CME CGM Technical Overview Requirements. Straits submitted an offer of settlement in which it neither admitted nor denied the rule violation upon which the penalty is based. In accordance with the settlement offer, the CHRC imposed a $50,000 fine. RBC Capital On April27, 2017, pursuant to an offer of settlement, a Panel of the Chicago Board of Trade Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that RBC Capital engaged in EFRP transactions which failed to satisfy the Rules of the Chicago Board of Trade (the “Exchange”) in one or more ways. Specifically, the Panel found that RBC Capital traders entered into EFRP trades in which RBC Capital accounts were on both sides of the transactions. While the purpose of the