Company: EUO
Filing Date: 2025-03-18
Form Type: S-3/A
Source: 0001193125-25-056731
Chunk: 223

Company: ProShares Trust II
Filing Date: 2025-03-18
Form: S-3/A
Chunk 223
---
 The Court has yet to rule on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 19-CV-8217 In a private litigation, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Firm made certain fraudulent misrepresentations to them that they relied upon in connection with a futures account carried by the Firm in its capacity as a futures commission merchant. The plaintiffs allege claims of common law fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and misrepresentation/omission and seek compensatory damages of approximately $2,029,659 plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. The Firm filed an Amended Answer and a Counterclaim in which the Firm denies the substantive allegations against it and asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract, indemnification and legal fees. On June 30, 2021, the Firm received the Opinion and Order in which the judge ruled against the plaintiffs and in favor of the Firm. Judgment was entered in favor of the Firm in the amount of $1,762,266.57, plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees and costs. On September 29, 2021, the Firm received an Opinion and Order in which the judge awarded the Firm $1,402,234.32 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Included by the Sponsor from the NFA Website and not provided by Marex Capital Markets, Inc. ICE Case #: 2024-008. Marex Capital Markets, Inc. was issued a summary fine in the amount of $10,000 for violating Rule 2.12 by reporting inaccurate open interest for the March 2024 Cotton No. 2 futures contract for trade dates February 20, 21 and 22, 2024. ICE Case #: 2023-011. On April 17, 2024, a subcommittee of the Exchange’s Business Conduct Committee (“BCC”) determined that from July 2022 through May 2023 (the “Relevant Period”), Marex Capital Markets, Inc. (“MCM”) may have violated Exchange Rule 4.15(b) in multiple instances by failing to assign a particular customer with its own unique identifications and instead allowing employees to improperly use and share Marex-affiliated identifications with such customer for certain block trades reported to the Exchange. The BCC also determined that, during the Relevant Period, MCM may have violated Exchange Rule 4