Company: EUO
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form Type: 424B3
Source: 0001193125-25-065647
Chunk: 216

Company: ProShares Trust II
Filing Date: 2025-03-28
Form: 424B3
Chunk 216
---
 Complaint does not allege that the Firm engaged in any wrongdoing or any wrongful misconduct. The Firm is simply alleged to have been the custodian of the Pledged Assets subject to the Debtors’ purported claims. On January 5, 2023, the Firm filed a Response and Limited Objection to Debtors’ Turnover Motion.

-138

The Debtors’ Turnover Motion was denied by the Court on January 9, 2023. On April 25, 2023, BlockFi and the Firm entered into a stipulation pursuant to which the adversary proceeding is stayed. BlockFi is permitted to file an amended adversary complaint, but the proceeding otherwise will remain stayed and the Firm is not required to respond. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 1:23-cv-14192 In a private litigation, Plaintiff alleges that the Firm and 2 of its employees (collectively, the “Defendants”), used Plaintiff’s software and trade secrets in their creation of a competing software platform. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and costs, as well as an injunction, prohibiting Defendants from using/benefitting from the alleged trade secrets, including the use of the competing software platform. On November 30, 2023, the Court stayed all discovery in the case pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On December 11, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. On February 2, 2024, Defendants filed its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. 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