35 unchanged sentences
Riker’s newly filed Delaware action consolidated with the Gilbertie case, and thus the Rikers eventually refiled their remaining claims as counterclaims in the Gilbertie case.
−Removed: Following various motions, five counts from the Gilbertie complaint and two of the Rikers’
−Removed: counterclaims remain in the Gilbertie case. 
−Removed: The first remaining count from the Gilbertie case is a claim brought by Teucrium against Ms.
+Added: Following various motions, five counts from the Gilbertie complaint and two of Mr.
+Added: Riker’s counterclaims remained in the Gilbertie case. 
+Added: The first remaining count from the Gilbertie case was a claim brought by Teucrium against Ms.
Riker for an alleged breach of her separation agreement that she entered into after resigning from Teucrium. 
−Removed: The second count is a claim brought against Mr.
+Added: The second count was a claim brought against Mr.
Riker for tortious interference with Ms.
Riker’s separation agreement.
−Removed: The third count is a claim brought against Ms.
+Added: The third count was a claim brought against Ms.
Riker seeking a declaration that the releases in her separation agreement are null and void.
−Removed: The fourth count is a claim brought against Mr.
+Added: The fourth count was a claim brought against Mr.
Riker for breach of Teucrium’s amended and restated limited liability agreement (the “Operating Agreement”).
−Removed: The fifth count is a claim brought against Mr.
+Added: The fifth count was a claim brought against Mr.
Riker for breach of fiduciary duty.
−Removed: The first of the Rikers’
−Removed: remaining counterclaims is a claim by Mr.
−Removed: Riker against Messrs.
−Removed: Gilbertie and Miller alleging that his removal breached the Operating Agreement. 
+Added: The first of Mr.
+Added: Riker’s remaining counterclaims was a claim against Messrs.
+Added: Gilbertie and Miller alleging that Mr.
+Added: Riker’s removal breached the Operating Agreement. 
The second remaining counterclaim, which Mr.
Riker brought against Mr.
−Removed: Gilbertie, seeks specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for Mr.
+Added: Gilbertie, sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for Mr.
Gilbertie to purchase Mr.
2 unchanged sentences
The Company denied the demand as to Barbara Riker.
−Removed: As to Dale Riker, the Company informed his counsel that it was willing to advance some of the fees and costs, but not the full amount of $1,056,402.50 in specific fees and costs that he had demanded to date.
−Removed: On October 24, 2022, the Company advanced $127,163.30.
+Added: As to Dale Riker, the Company informed his counsel that it was willing to advance some of the fees and costs, but not the full amount he had demanded to date.
On November 15, 2022, Dale Riker and Barbara Riker filed a verified complaint captioned “
2 unchanged sentences
2022-1030-LWW, to obtain advancement of legal fees and costs in connection with the Gilbertie case.
−Removed: Teucrium filed a motion making arguments concerning the requested advancement.
Following briefing and a hearing, on June 13, 2023, the Court of Chancery ruled that the Rikers are entitled to advancement.
−Removed: As a result of that ruling, the Rikers submitted a demand for payment of their fees and costs for the advancement action, totaling $380,152.84.
−Removed: Teucrium has paid $214,997.81 and objected to the balance.
−Removed: In addition to the advancement amount of $1,056,402.50 noted above that the Rikers demanded in 2022, the Rikers have demanded an additional advancement amount of $290,529.80 for work on the Gilbertie case since that demand, as well as an additional demand for approximately $90,000.
−Removed: Teucrium is reviewing those demands.
+Added: As a result of that ruling, the Company has paid to the Rikers, as payment of their fees and costs for the advancement action and as advancement pursuant to the Court ruling, a total of $2,132,246, including interest. 
On June 23, 2023, Teucrium asked the Court to permit an appeal of the advancement ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court. 
1 unchanged sentence
2022-1030-LWW. 
−Removed: The Rikers opposed the request. 
On July 7, 2023, the Court denied Teucrium’s request for interlocutory appeal, finding that the costs of an interlocutory appeal, including the drain on judicial resources from adjudicating piecemeal appeals, would outweigh any benefits. 
1 unchanged sentence
2022-1030-LWW.
−Removed: Teucrium subsequently petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court directly to accept an appeal from the ruling of the Court of Chancery. 
−Removed: See Amended Notice of Appeal from Interlocutory Order, C.A.
−Removed: 2022-1030-LWW.
+Added: Teucrium subsequently petitioned the Delaware Supreme Court directly to accept an appeal from the ruling of the Court of Chancery, which that Court denied.
On June 22, 2023, Messrs.
5 unchanged sentences
2022-1030-LWW. 
−Removed: On July 7, 2023 the Rikers filed a response, arguing that any dismissal should be conditioned as follows.
−Removed: First, any dismissal should reflect that the Rikers have been wholly successful on the merits, which the Rikers believe could streamline their ultimate indemnification request under Teucrium’s Operating Agreement. 
−Removed: Second, Teucrium and the other named plaintiffs in the litigation should be required to pay the advancement amounts that the Rikers assert they are owed, from November 30, 2020 to date. 
−Removed: Third, the Rikers assert that dismissal of all claims against the Rikers will cause Mr.
−Removed: Riker to incur additional fees and expenses in connection with his continuing to prosecute his counterclaims (which would remain after dismissal of all claims against the Rikers) and delay discovery in connection with those counterclaims. 
−Removed: Accordingly, the Rikers argue, any dismissal should therefore be conditioned on each of the plaintiffs in the Gilbertie case, jointly and severally, paying the Rikers’
−Removed: attorneys’
−Removed: fees and expenses (separate and apart from Teucrium’s advancement obligations) for the additional costs the dismissal will cause with respect to continued litigation of the Rikers’
−Removed: counterclaims.
−Removed: Except as described above, within the past 10 years of the date of this report, there have been no material administrative, civil or criminal actions against the Sponsor or the Trust, or any principal or affiliate of any of them.
−Removed: This includes any actions pending, on appeal, concluded, threatened, or otherwise known to them.
−Removed: Risk Factors applicable to Funds
−Removed: There have been no material changes to the risk factors previously disclosed in the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed on March 1, 2023.
+Added: On July 7, 2023, the Rikers filed a response, arguing that any dismissal should be subject to various conditions.
+Added: On September 5, 2023, the Court ruled that it would grant the motion to voluntarily dismiss the plaintiffs’
+Added: claims, without any of the conditions that the Rikers had requested.
+Added: Following the Court’s ruling, Teucrium filed a motion in the advancement action to terminate its advancement obligation in light of the dismissal of the claims against the Rikers.
+Added: The Rikers opposed the motion.
+Added: On October 20, 2023, at a hearing on the motion, the Court granted the motion terminating advancement obligations.
+Added: On October 26, 2023, the Court issued a written implementing order, making clear that advancement obligations terminated on September 5, 2023, the day the Court granted the motion to dismiss claims voluntarily.
+Added: The two counterclaims by Mr.
+Added: Riker discussed above remain.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.