What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Business

2026-02-27 compared with 2025-02-28 · 101 added, 79 removed, 1093 unchanged (14% of the section changed)

24 unchanged sentences

USCF believes that the net effect of this expected relationship and the expected relationship described above between USCI’s per share NAV and the SDCI will be that the daily changes in the price of USCI’s shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will closely track the daily changes in the SDCI on a percentage basis, less USCI’s expenses.

While USCI is composed of Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and is therefore a measure of the prices of the corresponding commodities comprising the SDCI for future delivery, there is nonetheless expected to be a reasonable degree of correlation between the SDCI and the cash or spot prices of the commodities underlying the Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

While USCI is composed of Benchmark Component Futures

Contracts and is therefore a measure of the prices of the corresponding commodities comprising the SDCI for future delivery, there is nonetheless expected to be a reasonable degree of correlation between the SDCI and the cash or spot prices of the commodities underlying the Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

Investors should be aware that USCI’s investment objective is not for its NAV or market price of shares to equal, in dollar terms, the spot prices of the commodities underlying the Benchmark Component Futures Contracts or the prices of any particular group of futures contracts.

21 unchanged sentences

USCF believes that the net effect of this expected relationship and the expected relationship described above between CPER’s per share NAV and the SCI will be that the daily changes in the price of CPER’s shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will closely track the daily changes in the SCI on a percentage basis, less CPER’s expenses.

While CPER is composed of Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts and is therefore a measure of the prices of the corresponding commodities comprising the SCI for future delivery, there is nonetheless expected to be a reasonable degree of correlation between the SCI and the cash or spot prices of the commodities underlying the Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts.

reasonable degree of correlation between the SCI and the cash or spot prices of the commodities underlying the Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts.

Investors should be aware that CPER’s investment objective is not for its NAV or market price of shares to equal, in dollar terms, the spot prices of the commodities underlying the Benchmark Component Copper Futures Contracts or the prices of any particular group of futures contracts.

16 unchanged sentences

USCF Investments is a holding company that currently holds both USCF, as well as USCF Advisers LLC, an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended, (“USCF Advisers”).

USCF Advisers serves as the investment adviser for the USCF SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity Strategy No K-1 Fund (“SDCI”), USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund (“UMI”), USCF Dividend Income Fund (“UDI”), USCF Gold Strategy Plus Income Fund (“USG”), USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (“ZSB”), USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (“USE”), and USCF Sustainable Commodity Strategy Fund (“ZSC”), each a series of the USCF ETF Trust.

USCF Advisers serves as the investment adviser for the USCF SummerHaven Dynamic Commodity Strategy No K-1 Fund (“SDCI”), USCF Midstream Energy Income Fund (“UMI”), USCF Dividend Income Fund (“UDI”), USCF Gold Strategy Plus Income Fund (“USG”), USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (“ZSB”), USCF Energy Commodity Strategy Absolute Return Fund (“USE”), and the USCF Oil Plus Bitcoin Strategy Fund (“WTIB”), USCF Sustainable Commodity Strategy Fund (“ZSC”), each a series of the USCF ETF Trust.

USCF ETF Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”).

35 unchanged sentences

regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures taken by CPER, CPER’s FCMs, counterparties or other market participants, liquidity and market conditions.

Other factors that may impact CPER’s investments in other Eligible Copper Futures Contracts, other exchange-traded futures contracts, or Other Copper-Related Investments include allowing CPER to obtain greater liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing.

liquidity or to execute transactions with more favorable pricing.

In addition, CPER may need to hold significant portions of its portfolio in cash beyond what it has historically held for reasons including (but not limited to) the need to address the changes in market conditions, regulatory requirements or risk mitigation measures or the need to satisfy potential margin requirements.

22 unchanged sentences

USCF further believes that the net effect of this expected relationship and the expected relationship described above between a Trust Series’ per share NAV and the Applicable Index will be that the daily changes in the price of a Trust Series’ shares on the NYSE Arca on a percentage basis will closely track the daily changes in the Applicable Index on a percentage basis, less such Trust Series’ expenses.

While the Applicable Index is composed of Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and is therefore a measure of the prices of the applicable commodities comprising the Applicable Index for future delivery, there is nonetheless expected to be a reasonable degree of correlation between the Applicable Index and the cash or spot prices of the commodities underlying the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

between the Applicable Index and the cash or spot prices of the commodities underlying the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

Commodity Interests.

21 unchanged sentences

As a result, in such circumstances, a Trust Series may be better able to achieve the exact amount of exposure to changes in price of the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts through the use of Other Related Investments, such as OTC contracts that have better correlation with changes in price of the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

Each Trust Series anticipates that, to the extent it invests in Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts other than the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and Other Related Investments that are not economically equivalent to the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts, it will enter into various non-exchange-traded derivative contracts to hedge the short-term price movements of such Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and Other Related Investments against the current Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

short-term price movements of such Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and Other Related Investments against the current Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts.

USCF does not anticipate letting its Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts expire and taking delivery of any commodities.

246 unchanged sentences

On CPER’s Selection Date (“CPER’s Selection Date”):

a) the copper futures curve is assessed to be in either backwardation or contango (as discussed below);

b) the Three Eligible Copper Futures Contracts are identified.

the copper futures curve is assessed to be in either backwardation or contango (as discussed below);

the Three Eligible Copper Futures Contracts are identified.

For each month, the Three Eligible Copper Futures Contracts are as follows:

104 unchanged sentences

futures and securities exchanges.

RBC Capital is a large broker dealer subject to many different complex legal and regulatory requirements.

As a result, certain of RBC Capital’s regulators may from time to time conduct investigations, initiate enforcement proceedings and/or enter into settlements with RBC Capital with respect to issues raised in various investigations.

RBC Capital complies fully with its regulators in all investigations being conducted and in all settlements it reaches.

In addition, RBC Capital is and has been subject to a variety of civil legal claims in various jurisdictions, a variety of settlement agreements and a variety of orders, awards and judgments made against it by courts and tribunals, both in regard to such claims and investigations.

RBC Capital complies fully with all settlements it reaches and all orders, awards and judgments made against it.

RBC Capital has been named as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation including those described below, arising in connection with its activities.

Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages.

RBC Capital is also involved, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding RBC Capital’s business, including among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief.

RBC Capital contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, RBC Capital cannot predict the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters;

how or if such matters will be resolved;

when they will ultimately be resolved;

or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be.

Subject to the foregoing, RBC Capital believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of RBC Capital.

On April 27, 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 “Chicago Board of Trade”) 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 transactions was to transfer positions between the RBC Capital accounts, the Panel found that the manner in which the trades occurred violated the Chicago Board of Trade’s prohibition on wash trades.

The Panel found that RBC Capital thereby violated CBOT Rules 534 and (legacy) 538.B.

In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered RBC Capital to pay a $175,000 fine.

On October 1, 2019, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges against RBC Capital for the above activity, as well as related charges.

The order required that RBC Capital cease and desist from violating the applicable regulations, pay a $5 million civil monetary penalty, and comply with various conditions, including conditions regarding public statements and future cooperation with the CFTC.

Various regulators are conducting inquiries regarding potential violations of antitrust law by a number of banks and other entities, including RBC Capital, regarding foreign exchange trading.

Beginning in 2015, putative class actions were brought against RBC Capital and/or Royal Bank of Canada, RBC Capital’s indirect parent, in the U.S.

These actions were each brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and allege, among other things, collusive behavior in global foreign exchange trading.

In August 2018, the U.S.

District Court entered a final order approving RBC Capital’s settlement with class plaintiffs.

In November 2018, certain institutional plaintiffs who had previously opted-out of participating in the settlement filed their own lawsuit in U.S.

District Court.

In May 2020, the U.S.

District Court dismissed RBC Capital from the opt-out action, but granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint.

The Canadian class actions remain pending and RBC Capital has reached a settlement for an immaterial amount with respect to an action brought by a class of indirect purchasers.

RBC Capital is awaiting the court’s final approval of the settlement.

In October 2020, RBC Capital and Royal Bank of Canada moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 28, 2021, the court dismissed Royal Bank of Canada from the case but denied the motion as to RBC Capital.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible at this time for management to predict the ultimate outcome of these collective matters or the timing of their ultimate resolution.

On April 13, 2015, RBC Capital’s affiliate, Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Bahamas) Limited (“RBC Bahamas”), was charged in France with complicity in tax fraud.

RBC Bahamas believes that its actions did not violate French law and contested the charge in the French court.

The trial of this matter has concluded and a verdict was delivered on January 12, 2017, acquitting the company and the other defendants and on June 29, 2018, the French appellate court affirmed the acquittals.

On January 6, 2021, the French Supreme Court issued a judgment reversing the decision of the French Court of Appeal dated June 29, 2018 and sent the case back to the French Court of Appeal for rehearing and therefore the proceeding is currently awaiting a new trial with the French Court of Appeal.

Royal Bank of Canada and other panel banks for the setting of the U.S.

dollar London interbank offered rate (“LIBOR”) have been named as defendants in private lawsuits filed in the U.S.

RBC Capital is subject to complex legal and regulatory requirements that continue to evolve.

It is and has been subject to a variety of legal proceedings including arbitrations, class actions and other civil litigations, as well as to other regulatory examinations, reviews, investigations (both formal and informal), audits and requests for information by various governmental regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations in various jurisdictions.

Some of these matters may involve novel legal theories and interpretations and claims for very substantial or indeterminable damages, and some could result in the imposition of substantial civil damages (including punitive damages), regulatory enforcement penalties, fines, injunctions or other relief.

In its discretion RBC Capital may choose to resolve claims, litigations or similar matters at any time.

Based on the facts as currently known, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such proceedings or the timing of their resolution.

The following is a description of RBC Capital’s significant legal proceedings.

LIBOR litigation

Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), RBC Capital’s ultimate parent, and several U.S.

dollar panel banks have been named as defendants in private lawsuits filed in the U.S.

with respect to the setting of U.S.

1 unchanged sentence

District Court for the Southern District of New York.

RBC Capital has also been named as a defendant in one of those lawsuits.

RBC Capital was named as a defendant in one of those lawsuits.

The complaints in those private lawsuits assert claims under various U.S.

2 unchanged sentences

Commodity Exchange Act, and state law.

In addition to the LIBOR actions, in January 2019, a number of financial institutions, including RBC Capital, were named in a purported class action in New York alleging violations of the U.S.

antitrust laws and common law principles of unjust enrichment in the setting of LIBOR after the Intercontinental Exchange took over administration of the benchmark interest rate from the British Bankers’ Association in 2014 (the “ICE LIBOR action”).

On March 26, 2020, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the ICE LIBOR action was granted.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 24, 2020 and, thereafter, sought to substitute named plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit permitted substitution, but has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal.

In August 2020, Royal Bank of Canada and other financial institutions were named as defendants in a separate, individual (i.e., non-class) action filed in California alleging that the usage and setting of LIBOR constitutes per se collusive conduct.

In November 2020 and May 2021, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction with respect to the setting of ICE LIBOR;

defendants opposed these motions and sought to transfer the matter to New York.

On June 3, 2021, the court denied defendants’ motion to transfer.

Defendants then moved to dismiss.

Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motion to dismiss remain pending.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of these proceedings or the timing of their resolution.

On December 30, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part certain district court rulings that had dismissed a substantial portion of the consolidated class action on jurisdictional grounds and lack of standing.

The Second Circuit remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

On July 21, 2023, RBC and several other defendants executed a settlement agreement resolving the LIBOR class action brought on behalf of certain plaintiffs that purchased U.S.

dollar LIBOR-based instruments.

RBC and the other defendants agreed to a $101 million settlement amount.

On December 12, 2023, the settlement agreement was granted final court approval.

In 2024, RBC and several other defendants executed settlement agreements resolving the two remaining LIBOR putative class actions in which RBC was a defendant.

These class actions were brought on behalf of certain plaintiffs who transacted in Eurodollar futures contracts and/or related options on exchanges (the Exchange Action), and certain plaintiffs who originated or purchased LIBOR-linked loans (the Lender Action).

RBC and the other defendants agreed to a $3.45 million settlement amount in the Exchange Act and a $1.91 million settlement amount in the Lender Action.

The settlements in both the Exchange Action and Lender Action were granted final court approval on September 5, 2024 and October 17, 2024, respectively.

RBC remains a defendant in certain LIBOR-related individual actions.

Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Bahamas) Limited Proceedings

On April 13, 2015, a French investigating judge notified the RBC Capital’s affiliate, Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Bahamas) Limited (RBC Bahamas), of the issuance of an ordonnance de renvoi referring RBC Bahamas and other unrelated persons to the French tribunal correctionnel to face the charge of complicity in estate tax fraud relating to actions taken relating to a trust for which RBC Bahamas serves as trustee.

RBC Bahamas contested the charge in the French court.

On January 12, 2017, the French court acquitted all parties including RBC Bahamas and on June 29, 2018, the French appellate court affirmed the acquittals.

The acquittals were appealed and on January 6, 2021 the French Supreme Court issued a judgment reversing the decision of the French Court of Appeal and sent the case back to the French Court of Appeal for rehearing.

On March 5, 2024, the Court of Appeal rendered a judgment of conviction (the Conviction) against RBC Bahamas and the other parties.

RBC Bahamas was ordered by the Court of Appeal to pay a fine in connection with the Conviction.

In addition, the Court of Appeal ordered that certain of those convicted of complicity in the matter, including RBC Bahamas, are jointly liable for the allegedly unpaid inheritance taxes owing, plus penalties and interest (such aggregate amount will be determined in a separate proceeding before the tax courts, the timing of which is to be determined).

RBC Bahamas believes that its actions did not violate French law, and has appealed the Conviction to the French Supreme Court.

Under French law, upon the filing of an appeal by RBC Bahamas, the Conviction, as well as its effects (fine and joint liability) were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

In 2016, RBC was granted an exemption by the U.S.

Department of Labor that allows RBC and its current and future affiliates, including RBC Capital, to continue to qualify for the Qualified Professional Asset Manager (QPAM) exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act despite any potential conviction of RBC Bahamas in the French proceeding, for a temporary one year period from the date of conviction.

RBC Capital relies on the QPAM exemption in its ability to manage pension and retirement funds.

On December 11, 2023, the U.S.

Department of Labor published a technical correction to the prior one-year exemption reflecting the fact that the then-pending Court of Appeal’s decision will be rendered by an appellate court, and not the district court.

As a result of the Conviction, the temporary one-year period commenced on March 5, 2024.

RBC has sought longer term relief from the Department of Labor.

RBC Bahamas continues to review the trustee’s and the trust’s legal obligations, including the liabilities and potential liabilities under applicable tax and other laws.

SEC investigation

In October 2022, RBC Capital received a request for information and documents from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications exchanged on personal devices and other electronic channels that have not been approved by RBC Capital.

In August 2024, the SEC entered into a settlement with RBC Capital.

RBC agreed to a $45 million settlement amount.

On February 7, 2025, RBC Capital sought to modify the settlement order.

The SEC denied the request to modify on April 15, 2025.

FINRA disciplinary action

In a FINRA investigation, FINRA found that between 2010 and 2019, RBC Capital sent trade confirmations to customers for fixed income transactions that contained inaccurate information which stemmed from errors in RBC Capital’s electronic systems.

FINRA also found that RBC Capital failed to send SEC-required trade confirmations for certain dividend reinvestment program transactions between 2006 and 2023.

On April 29, 2024, FINRA entered into a settlement with RBC Capital.

RBC Capital agreed to pay a $375,000 fine and $393,833.50 in restitution to customers.

government bonds litigation

In June 2023, RBC Europe Limited and the RBC Capital, among other financial institutions, were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S.

by plaintiffs alleging anti-competitive conduct, between 2009 and 2013, in the U.K.

government bonds market.

In September 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which motion was granted, without prejudice, in September 2024.

Subsequently, on October 31, 2024, RBC Europe Limited, RBC Capital and certain of the other defendants executed an agreement to dismiss the action, with prejudice, against those defendants.

The settlement agreement remains subject to court approval.

SEC retirement plan investigation

In an order issued on April 24, 2020, the SEC found that RBC Capital failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest to certain retail retirement account and charitable organization brokerage customers between 2012 and 2017.

RBC Capital agreed to a settlement and was ordered to pay a disgorgement of $2,607,676 with prejudgment interest of $631,331 and a civil penalty of $650,000.

Please see RBC Capital’s Form BD, which is available on the FINRA BrokerCheck program, for more details.

43 unchanged sentences

Risk Factors”, including, but not limited to, the following risks:

● Infectious disease outbreaks like COVID-19 could negatively affect the valuation and performance of CPER’s investments.

● The NAV of a Trust Series’ shares relates directly to the value of its assets invested in accordance with the Applicable Index and other assets held by a Trust Series and fluctuations in the prices of these assets could materially adversely affect an investment in a Trust Series’ shares.

Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results;

all or substantially all of an investment in a Trust Series could be lost.

● An investment in a Trust Series may provide little or no diversification benefits.

Thus, in a declining market, a Trust Series may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and an investor may suffer losses on an investment in a Trust Series while incurring losses with respect to other asset classes.

● Price volatility may possibly cause the total loss of your investment.

● Natural disasters, public health disruptions (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), and international armed conflicts could impact the price of commodities and/or the value, pricing and liquidity of a Trust Series' investments or assets which, in turn, could cause the loss of your investment in the Trust Series.

● Historical performance of a Trust Series and its Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts is not indicative of future performance.

8 unchanged sentences

● An investor’s allocable share of taxable income or loss may differ from its economic income or loss on its shares.

● Items of income, gain, deduction, loss and credit with respect to shares could be reallocated, and for taxable periods beginning after December 31, 2017, the Trust Series could be liable for U.S.

federal income tax, if the U.S.

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) does not accept the assumptions and conventions applied by the Trust Series in allocating those items, with potential adverse consequences for an investor.

● Items of income, gain, deduction, loss and credit with respect to shares could be reallocated for U.S.

federal income tax purposes, the Trust Series could be liable for U.S.

federal income tax, if the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) does not accept the assumptions and conventions applied by the Trust Series in allocating those items, with potential adverse consequences for an investor.

● Each Trust Series could be treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, which may substantially reduce the value of the shares.

71 unchanged sentences

USCI also pays the fees and expenses associated with its audit expenses, professional fees, and tax accounting and reporting requirements.

These fees were approximately $433,806 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024.

These fees were $353,700 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025.

In addition, USCI is responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for USCI, the other Trust Series and the Related Public Funds.

2 unchanged sentences

These fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2025 were approximately $754,349 for the Trust Series and the Related Public Funds.

USCI’s portion of such fees and expenses was $59,716.

USCI’s portion of such fees and expenses were $65,484.

Expenses Paid or Accrued by CPER from Inception through December 31, 2025 in Dollar Terms:

34 unchanged sentences

CPER also pays the fees and expenses associated with its audit expenses, professional fees, and tax accounting and reporting requirements.

These fees were approximately $618,031 for the year ended December 31, 2024.

These fees were $442,150 for the year ended December 31, 2025.

In addition, CPER is responsible for paying its portion of the directors’ and officers’ liability insurance for CPER, the other Trust Series and the Related Public Funds.

2 unchanged sentences

These fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2025 were approximately $754,349 for the Trust Series and the Related Public Funds.

CPER’s portion of such fees and expenses was $46,941.

CPER’s portion of such fees and expenses were $57,832.

Form of Shares

39 unchanged sentences

or information of the types described above from internal sources if that information is of the same type used by a Trust Series in the regular course of its business for the valuation of similar transactions.

The information may include costs of funding, to the extent costs of funding are not and would not be a component of the other information being utilized.

The information may include costs of funding, to the

extent costs of funding are not and would not be a component of the other information being utilized.

Third parties supplying quotations or market data may include, without limitation, dealers in the relevant markets, end-users of the relevant product, information vendors, brokers and other sources of market information.

61 unchanged sentences

By placing a purchase order, an Authorized Participant agrees to (1) deposit Treasuries, cash, or a combination of Treasuries and cash with the Custodian, and (2) if required by USCF in its sole discretion, enter into or arrange for a block trade, an exchange for physical or exchange for swap, or any other OTC energy transaction (through itself or a designated acceptable broker) with a Trust Series for the purchase of a number and type of futures contracts at the closing settlement price for such contracts on the purchase order date.

If an Authorized Participant fails to consummate (1) and (2), the order shall be cancelled.

If an Authorized Participant fails

to consummate (1) and (2), the order shall be cancelled.

The number and types of contracts specified shall be determined by USCF, in its sole discretion, to meet a Trust Series’ investment objective and shall be purchased as a result of the Authorized Participant’s purchase of shares.

25 unchanged sentences

New York time or the close of regular trading on the NYSE Arca, whichever is earlier.

A redemption order so received will be effective on the date it is received in satisfactory form by the Marketing Agent (“Redemption Order Date”).

A redemption order so received will be effective on the date it is received in satisfactory form by the Marketing Agent (“Redemption

Order Date”).

The redemption procedures allow Authorized Participants to redeem baskets and do not entitle an individual shareholder to redeem any shares in an amount less than a Redemption Basket, or to redeem baskets other than through an Authorized Participant.

21 unchanged sentences

If USCF has difficulty liquidating a Trust Series’ positions, e.g., because of a market disruption event in the futures markets or an unanticipated delay in the liquidation of a position in an over the counter contract, it may be appropriate to suspend redemptions until such time as such circumstances are rectified.

None of USCF, the Marketing Agent, the Administrator or the Custodian will be liable to any person or in any way for any loss or damages that may result from any such suspension or postponement.

None of USCF, the Marketing Agent, the

Administrator or the Custodian will be liable to any person or in any way for any loss or damages that may result from any such suspension or postponement.

Redemption orders must be made in whole baskets.

23 unchanged sentences

In addition, while the Trust Series’ shares trade during the core trading session on the NYSE Arca until 4:00 p.m.

New York time, liquidity in the market for Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and Other Related Investments may be reduced after the close of the Futures Exchanges upon which the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts are traded.

New York time, liquidity in the market for Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts and Other Related Investments may be reduced after

the close of the Futures Exchanges upon which the Applicable Benchmark Component Futures Contracts are traded.

As a result, during this time, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the shares may widen.

34 unchanged sentences

Ongoing margin and collateral payments will generally be required for both exchange-traded and OTC Applicable Interests based on changes in the value of the Applicable Interests.

Furthermore, ongoing collateral requirements with respect to OTC Applicable Interests are negotiated by the parties, and may be affected by overall market volatility, volatility of the underlying commodity or index, the ability of the counterparty to hedge its exposure under the Applicable Interest, and each party’s creditworthiness.

creditworthiness.

Margin is merely a security deposit and has no bearing on the profit or loss potential for any positions held.

26 unchanged sentences

A forward contract is a contractual obligation to purchase or sell a specified quantity of a commodity at or before a specified date in the future at a specified price and, therefore, is economically similar to a futures contract.

Unlike futures contracts, however, forward contracts are typically traded in the OTC markets and are not standardized contracts.

Unlike futures contracts, however, forward

contracts are typically traded in the OTC markets and are not standardized contracts.

Forward contracts for a given commodity are generally available for various amounts and maturities and are subject to individual negotiation between the parties involved.

66 unchanged sentences

As such, the NFA promulgates rules governing the conduct of commodity professionals and disciplines those professionals that do not comply with such standards.

The CFTC has delegated to the NFA responsibility for the registration of commodity pool operators.

CFTC has delegated to the NFA responsibility for the registration of commodity pool operators.

USCF is a member of the NFA.

84 unchanged sentences

4472746) for “Financial investment services in the field of copper futures contracts, cash-settled options on copper futures contracts, forward contracts for copper, over-the-counter transactions based on the price of copper, and indices based on the foregoing,” in use since February 13, 2012.

USCF relies upon these trademarks through which it markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the market and among current and potential investors.

USCF relies upon these trademarks through which it markets its services and strives to build and maintain brand recognition in the market and

among current and potential investors.

So long as USCF continues to use these trademarks to identify its services, without challenge from any third party, and properly maintains and renews the trademark registrations under applicable laws, rules and regulations, it will continue to have indefinite protection for these trademarks under current laws, rules and regulations.

9 unchanged sentences

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.

What changed 10-K

Item 1. Business