What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Business

2026-02-27 compared with 2025-02-28 · 202 added, 124 removed, 953 unchanged (25% of the section changed)

21 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”), USCF Sustainable Commodity Strategy Fund (“ZSC”) and the USCF Oil Plus and Bitcoin Strategy Fund (“WTIB”), 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”).

2 unchanged sentences

USCF serves as the general partner of USO.

(the “AMEX”) under the ticker symbols “UNG” on April 18, 2007, “USL” on December 6, 2007 and “UGA” on February 26, 2008, respectively.

USCF also serves as the general partner of the United States Natural Gas Fund, LP (“UNG”), the United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (“USL”), the United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”), which listed their limited partnership shares on the American Stock Exchange (the “AMEX”) under the ticker symbols “UNG” on April 18, 2007, “USL” on December 6, 2007 and “UGA” on February 26, 2008, respectively.

As a result of the acquisition of the AMEX by NYSE Euronext, each of UNG’s, USL’s and UGA’s shares commenced trading on the NYSE Arca on November 25, 2008.

34 unchanged sentences

The daily holdings of USO are available on USO’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com.

Prior to the Spring of 2020, USO has achieved its investment objective by primarily investing in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract and Oil Futures Contracts for light, sweet crude oil traded on NYMEX and ICE Futures with the same maturity month as the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.

In the Spring of 2020, significant market volatility occurred in the crude oil markets and the oil futures markets.

Such volatility was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, related supply chain disruptions and disputes among oil-producing countries over the potential limits on the production of crude oil, and a corresponding collapse in demand for crude oil and a lack of on-land storage for crude oil.

Certain circumstances, including the market conditions, regulatory requirements, and risk mitigation measures imposed by its FCMs, resulting from such volatility caused, as discussed below, USO to invest in Oil Futures Contracts other than the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract and to invest in Other Oil-Related Investments, such as swap transactions based on the price of oil.

These conditions severely limited USO’s ability to have a substantial portion of its assets invested in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract and certain other Oil Futures Contracts of the same month, such as cash-settled, but substantially similar, oil futures contracts traded on ICE Futures (the “ICE WTI Contract”).

In addition, during the Spring of 2020, USO had to rebalance and adjust the types of holdings in its portfolio more frequently than it had in the past.

Accordingly, USO invested in other permitted Oil Futures Contracts with expirations in later months than the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.

USO also invested, and has continued to invest, in other permitted investments, including Other Oil-Related Investments, including OTC swaps.

Following the significant market volatility that occurred in the Spring of 2020 and the market conditions, regulatory requirements and risk mitigation measures taken by USO and USO’s FCM that impacted USO as a result thereof, USO disclosed its parameters for making decisions regarding the permitted investments USO would hold, including the intended order of priority in selection investments and the type of investments to be held in its portfolio.

Beginning with the monthly roll in September 2023 and ending with the monthly roll in January 2024, USO transitioned its investment portfolio to primarily invest in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, consistent with USO’s investment strategy prior to the Spring of 2020.

2 unchanged sentences

In addition, USO 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.

Each month over a ten-day period, USO changes the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, which at the beginning of the month is the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as traded on the NYMEX that is the near or front month to expire (referred to herein as the first month), into the NYMEX futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (referred to herein as the second month).

Each month over a five-day period, USO changes the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, which at the beginning of the month is the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as traded on the NYMEX that is the near or front month to expire (referred to herein as the first month), into the NYMEX futures contract that is the next month contract to expire (referred to herein as the second month).

The Benchmark Oil Futures Contract remains the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as traded on the NYMEX for the first month before the roll period.

During the roll period, the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract will proportionately change each day of the roll to the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as traded on the NYMEX for the second month, until the roll is completed.

On each day over a ten-day period, USCF “rolls” USO’s positions in Oil Interests by closing, or selling, a percentage of USO’s positions in Oil Interests and reinvesting the proceeds from closing those positions in new Oil Interests that reflected the change in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.

On each day over a five-day period, USCF “rolls” USO’s positions in Oil Interests by closing, or selling, a percentage of USO’s positions in Oil Interests and reinvesting the proceeds from closing those positions in new Oil Interests that reflected the change in the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract.

USO rolls its positions in Oil Futures Contracts in the first month prior to the end of the month to avoid such contracts’ expiration and having to take delivery of the underlying commodity.

The change from a four-day roll to a ten-day roll, whether or not USO holds any Benchmark Oil Futures Contacts at the time of the roll, did not change USO’s benchmark or its investment objective other than as described herein.

The Benchmark Oil Futures Contract

remains the futures contract on light, sweet crude oil as traded on the NYMEX for the first month before the roll period.

Typically, on each day during the ten-day roll period, USO intends to rebalance approximately 1/10th of the announced percentage of the notional value of its nearest month instrument and other specified instruments (which could be 100% of such notional value of such interests) and reinvest the proceeds in the remaining current portfolio holdings as well as further-dated contracts and any new specified portfolio holdings.

Typically, on each day during the five-day roll period, USO intends to rebalance approximately 20% of the announced percentage of the notional value of its nearest month instrument and other specified instruments (which could be 100% of such notional value of such interests) and reinvest the proceeds in the remaining current portfolio holdings as well as further-dated contracts and any new specified portfolio holdings.

In addition, USO may need to adjust the roll/rebalance in light of market conditions, regulatory requirements, risk mitigation measures (including those that may be taken by USO, USO’s FCMs, counterparties or other market participants), or other factors that impact the ability of USO to make its investments and achievement its investment objective.

1 unchanged sentence

The anticipated dates that the monthly roll period will commence are posted on USO’s website at www.uscfinvestments.com, and are subject to change without notice.

Prior to January 1 2026, USO rolled its positions over a ten-day period instead of a five-day period.

The change from a ten-day roll period to a five-day roll period did not change USO’s benchmark or its investment objective.

USO’s total portfolio composition is disclosed on its website each business day that the NYSE Arca is open for trading.

21 unchanged sentences

USO seeks to invest in a combination of Oil Interests such that the daily changes in its NAV, measured in percentage terms, will closely track the daily changes in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract, also measured in percentage terms.

As a specific benchmark,

USCF endeavors to place USO’s trades in Oil Interests and otherwise manage USO’s investments so that “A” will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of “B”, where:

As a specific benchmark, USCF endeavors to place USO’s trades in Oil Interests and otherwise manage USO’s investments so that “A” will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of “B”, where:

● A is the average daily percentage change in USO’s per share NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days;

71 unchanged sentences

If USO and the Related Public Funds exceed these accountability levels for investments in the futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil, the NYMEX and ICE Futures Europe will monitor such exposure and may ask for further information on their activities, including the total size of all positions, investment and trading strategy, and the extent of liquidity resources of USO and the Related Public Funds.

If deemed necessary by the NYMEX

and/or ICE Futures Europe, USO could be ordered to reduce its net futures contracts back to the accountability level.

If deemed necessary by the NYMEX and/or ICE Futures Europe, USO could be ordered to reduce its net futures contracts back to the accountability level.

As of December 31, 2025, USO held 13,180 NYMEX WTI Crude Oil Futures CL contracts and did not hold any ICE WTI Crude Oil Futures contracts.

25 unchanged sentences

USO seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing so that the average daily percentage change in USO’s NAV for any period of 30 successive valuation days will be within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract over the same period.

As a result, investors should be aware that USO would meet its investment objective even if there are significant deviations between changes in its daily NAV and changes in the daily price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract provided that the average daily percentage change in USO’s NAV over 30 successive valuation days is within plus/minus ten percent (10%) of the average daily percentage change in the

price of the Benchmark Oil Futures Contract over the same period.

USO’s investment strategy is designed to provide investors with a cost-effective way to invest indirectly in crude oil and to hedge against movements in the spot price of light, sweet crude oil.

67 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.

17 unchanged sentences

MCM complies fully with its regulators in all investigations which may be conducted and in all settlements it may reach.

As of the date hereof, MCM has no material litigation to disclose as that term is defined under the CEA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Except as indicated below, there have been no material civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings pending, on appeal, or concluded against MCM or its principals in the past five (5) years.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civil Action No.

In a private litigation, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that MCM made certain fraudulent misrepresentations to them that they relied upon in connection with a futures account carried by MCM in its capacity as a futures commission merchant.

The plaintiffs alleged 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.

On June 30, 2021, MCM received the Opinion and Order in which the judge ruled against the plaintiffs and in favor of MCM.

Judgment was entered in favor of MCM in the amount of $1,762,266.57, plus prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees and costs.

On September 29, 2021, MCM received an Opinion and Order in which the judge awarded MCM $1,402,234.32 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

JAMS Arbitration

In a JAMS Arbitration, claimants sought monetary damages relating to trading losses in claimants’ futures trading accounts carried by MCM (the “Accounts”).

The Accounts were traded pursuant to a power of attorney granted by the claimants to a registered commodity trading advisor.

Claimants sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of commissions and margin interest, and forgiveness of margin debt plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

On September 23, 2021, the claimants and MCM settled the matter.

FINRA Arbitration

In a FINRA Arbitration, claimants sought monetary damages relating to trading losses in claimants’ equity trading account carried by MCM (the “Account”).

The Account was a portfolio margin account, and the claimants alleged losses relating to the risk parameters and margin applied to the Account.

Claimants sought compensatory damage plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

On June 22, 2023, the panel dismissed claimants’ claims in their entirety.

On September 20, 2023, claimants filed a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

On November 15, 2023, MCM filed its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award and a Cross-Motion to Confirm the Award and recover Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

On April 22, 2024, the claimants’ Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award was denied.

Cook County Litigation

In a private litigation, a plaintiff sought monetary damages relating to allegations of breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act.

The plaintiff sought damages plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiff and MCM settled the matter and, on September 29, 2023, an Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed.

Adversary Complaint

In an adversary complaint, certain debtors seek to enforce the terms of a pledge agreement of a third-party and to recover collateral that is allegedly the property of debtors (the “Pledged Assets”).

MCM previously had custody of the Pledged Assets.

On January 4, 2023, the government provided instructions for the transfer of the Pledged Assets to a government-controlled account.

The complaint does not allege that MCM engaged in any wrongdoing or any wrongful misconduct.

MCM is simply alleged to have been the custodian of the Pledged Assets subject to the debtors’ purported claims.

On January 5, 2023, MCM filed a Response and Limited Objection to debtors’ Turnover Motion.

The debtors’ Turnover Motion was denied by the Court on January 9, 2023.

On April 25, 2023, BlockFi and MCM 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 MCM 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, a plaintiff alleges that MCM 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.

On May 2, 2024, the Court granted the motion and dismissed six of the eight counts, but permitted Plaintiff to amend its complaint.

Plaintiff indicated that it does not intend to amend the complaint.

The matter remains pending and the parties are currently exchanging in discovery.

MCM was acquired by the Marex Group in phases during the second half of 2022 and went from doing business as E D & F Man Capital Markets, Inc.

9 unchanged sentences

Under this agreement, USO pays MFUSA commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of USO.

MFUSA’s primary address is 125 West 55th Street, New York, NY 10019.

MFUSA’s primary address is 660 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10103.

MFUSA is registered in the United States with the CFTC as an FCM providing futures execution and clearing services covering futures exchanges globally.

22 unchanged sentences

Neither ADMIS nor any of its principals have been the subject of any material administrative, civil or criminal actions within the past five years, except for the following matters.

In an Order entered on July 12, 2019 the CFTC found that between December 2014 and September 24, 2017, ADMIS failed to diligently supervise the handling by its employees and agents of commodity interest accounts as well as the activities of its employees and agents relating to its business as an FCM in violation of CFTC Regulation 166.3.

The order imposed a civil monetary penalty of $250,000.

On January 28, 2020, a Commodity Exchange Business Conduct Committee Panel (“Panel”) found that between 2012 and 2018, ADMIS learned that one of its brokerage firm clients automatically offset omnibus account positions in futures contracts using the FIFO method and was misreporting its open positions.

7 unchanged sentences

The order imposed a civil monetary fine of $500,000.

Pursuant to an offer of settlement in which ADMIS neither admitted nor denied the rule violation or factual findings upon which the penalty is based, on September 19, 2023, a Panel of the Chicago Board of Trade Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that from at least January 2015 through September 2019, ADMIS failed to diligently supervise its employees and agents in the handling of accounts carried by ADMIS and introduced by introducing brokers.

Specifically, ADMIS employees and agents failed to detect numerous instances wherein brokers employed by introducing brokers successfully requested account changes and trade transfers between customer accounts in E-Mini Dow, Corn, Kansas City Hard Winter Wheat, Chicago Soft Winter Wheat, Soybean, and Soybean Meal futures markets, often without the knowledge or permission of the account owners, in order to:

allocate profitable trades originally executed in accounts the brokers traded to other customer accounts the brokers controlled or managed;

allocate profitable trades from certain customer accounts into the brokers’ personal accounts;

allocate positions out of the brokers’ personal accounts and into customers’ accounts, thus allowing the brokers to avoid losses;

and transfer losing trades from certain accounts to other customer accounts the brokers controlled or managed.

Additionally, the Panel found that ADMIS failed to timely implement enhanced policies and procedures to effectively monitor, detect, and assess account change and transfer requests.

Further, despite evidence of its own deficiencies regarding account change and transfer trade abuse detection, including customer complaints and notice of a complaint involving an employee, ADMIS failed to adequately remediate its processes, which thereby allowed violative conduct to persist for several years.

The Panel therefore concluded that ADMIS violated CBOT Rule 432.W.

In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered ADMIS to pay a $450,000 fine in connection with this case and companion cases CME and COMEX 20-1401-BC ($175,000 of which is allocated to CBOT).

Pursuant to an offer of settlement in which ADMIS neither admitted nor denied the rule violation or factual findings upon which the penalty is based, on September 19, 2023, a Panel of the Commodity Exchange Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that from at least December 2016 through December 2017, ADMIS failed to diligently supervise its own employees and agents in their handling of accounts carried by ADMIS.

Specifically, ADMIS employees and agents failed to detect numerous instances wherein an ADMIS broker successfully requested account changes and trade transfers between customer accounts in Copper futures markets, often without the knowledge or permission of the account owner.

The broker requested these changes to transfer losing trades from a customer’s personal account to a corporate account the customer shared ownership of and the broker controlled.

Additionally, the Panel found that ADMIS failed to timely implement policies and procedures to effectively monitor, detect, and assess account change and transfer requests.

The Panel therefore concluded that ADMIS violated COMEX Rule 432.W.

In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered ADMIS to pay a $450,000 fine in connection with this case and companion cases CME and CBOT 20-1401-BC ($100,000 of which is allocated to COMEX).

Pursuant to an offer of settlement in which ADMIS neither admitted nor denied the rule violation or factual findings upon which the penalty is based, on September 19, 2023, a Panel of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that from at least January 2015 through September 2019, ADMIS failed to diligently supervise its employees and agents in the handling of accounts carried by ADMIS and introduced by introducing brokers.

Specifically, ADMIS employees and agents failed to detect numerous instances wherein brokers employed by introducing brokers successfully requested account changes and trade transfers between customer accounts in Live Cattle, Feeder Cattle, Lean Hog, E-Mini S&P 500, and E-Mini NASDAQ futures markets, often without the knowledge or permission of the account owners, in order to:

allocate profitable trades originally executed in accounts the brokers traded to other customer accounts the brokers controlled or managed;

allocate profitable trades from certain customer accounts into the brokers’ personal accounts;

allocate positions out of the brokers’ personal accounts and into customers’ accounts, thus allowing the brokers to avoid losses;

and transfer losing trades from certain accounts to other customer accounts the brokers controlled or managed.

Additionally, the Panel found that ADMIS failed to timely implement enhanced policies and procedures to effectively monitor, detect, and assess account change and transfer requests.

The Panel therefore concluded that ADMIS violated CME Rule 432.W.

In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered ADMIS to pay a $450,000 fine in connection with this case and companion cases CBOT and COMEX 20-1401-BC ($175,000 of which is allocated to CME).

ADMIS will act only as clearing broker for USO and as such will be paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of USO.

10 unchanged sentences

Securities and Exchange Commission as a broker-dealer, with the CFTC as an introducing broker, and is a member of FINRA and other regulatory agencies and exchanges.

In the normal course of its

regulated business activities, BTIG receives examinations, subpoenas, and inquiries from the regulatory organizations that oversee its various business activities.

From January 2017 through December 2022, BTIG has not been involved in any material litigation.

In the normal course of its regulated business activities, BTIG receives examinations, subpoenas, and inquiries from the regulatory organizations that oversee its various business activities.

On May 19, 2021, the SEC charged BTIG, LLC with repeatedly violating the order-marking and locate provisions of SEC Regulation SHO, which regulates the short-selling of securities.

According to the SEC’s complaint, from December 2016 through July 2017, BTIG, LLC violated Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO when it mismarked more than 90 sale orders from a hedge fund customer - representing total sales of more than $250 million - as “long” and “short exempt” when those orders should have been marked as “short”.

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges BTIG, LLC with violating Rules 200(g) and 203(b)(1) of Regulation SHO.

On May 2, 2022, the court entered judgment by consent against BTIG, LLC, permanently enjoining BTIG, LLC from violating Rules 200(g) and 203(b)(1) of Regulation SHO.

The court also ordered BTIG, LLC to pay disgorgement of $315,048, prejudgment interest of $64,258, and a penalty of $315,048.

BTIG, LLC is not affiliated with USO or USCF.

3 unchanged sentences

USO’s OTC swap transactions outstanding under the Macquarie ISDA, if any, along with USO’s other holdings, are posted on USO’s webpage, www.uscfinvestments.com.

Macquarie Bank Limited’s principal address is Ropemaker Place, 28 Ropemaker Street, London, EC2Y 9HD, England.

In the normal course of its business, Macquarie Bank Limited is involved in various legal actions incidental to its business.

None of these actions are expected either individually or in aggregate to have a material adverse impact on Macquarie Bank Limited.

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

Listed below are the material administrative, civil or criminal actions against Macquarie Bank Limited within the past five years.

In an order issued on April 19, 2024, the Federal Court of Australia found that between May 2016 and January 2020, Macquarie Bank Limited failed to have effective controls to prevent and detect unauthorized fee transactions conducted by third parties, such as financial advisers, on customer cash management accounts using Macquarie Bank Limited’s bulk transacting facility.

As a result, independent financial advisors fraudulently misappropriated client funds through Macquarie Bank Limited cash management account.

The court ordered Macquarie Bank Limited to pay a penalty of $10 million.

On August 26, 2024, following an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (“ASIC”), ASIC found that Macquarie Bank Limited failed to prevent suspicious orders from being placed on the electricity futures market.

According to the order, Macquarie Bank Limited should have suspected that 50 orders were with the intention to create a false or misleading appearance in the market because the orders each placed within the last minute of market close, impacting the daily settlement price.

Macquarie Bank Limited was ordered to pay a penalty of $4,995,000.

In May 2025, ASIC imposed additional conditions on Macquarie Bank Limited’s Australian financial services license for further failures in supervision, compliance oversight, and control management.

The additional license conditions require Macquarie Bank Limited to prepare a remediation plan to address issues in its futures dealing business and OTC derivatives trade reporting functions, appoint an independent expert to review the remediation plan, and have the independent expert assess the operational effectiveness of Macquarie Bank Limited’ remediation activities.

Macquarie Bank Limited’s principal address is 1 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.

Macquarie Bank Limited is registered with the CFTC as a swap dealer.

45 unchanged sentences

has not yet been served with the complaint in this matter.

On June 4, 2018, the CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges against Société Générale S.A.

for attempted manipulation of and false reporting in connection with the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) for U.S.

Dollar, Yen, and Euro, and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor), certain instances of manipulation of Yen LIBOR, and aiding and abetting traders at another bank in their attempts to manipulate Euribor.

The Bank’s misconduct spanned more than six years, from 2006 through mid-2012.

The CFTC order required Société Générale to pay a civil monetary penalty of $475 million, cease and desist from further violations as charged, and adhere to specific undertakings to ensure the integrity of its LIBOR, Euribor, and other benchmark interest rate submissions in the future.

Société Générale to pay a civil monetary penalty of $475 million, cease and desist from further violations as charged, and adhere to specific undertakings to ensure the integrity of its LIBOR, Euribor, and other benchmark interest rate submissions in the future.

Beginning on 15 January 2019, Société Générale S.A.

44 unchanged sentences

By order dated 13 January 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

The final fairness hearing has been scheduled for 5 August 2022.

The Court entered a final judgment approving the settlement on 8 August 2022.

Although Société Générale S.A.’s share of the settlement is not public, it was not material from a financial perspective.

2 unchanged sentences

is defending the claims.

On August 8, 2023, the CFTC filed and settled charges against swap dealer and FCM affiliates of Société Générale S.A.

and SGAS, along with other financial institutions, for failing to maintain, preserve, or produce records that were required to be kept under CFTC recordkeeping requirements, and failing to diligently supervise matters related to their businesses as CFTC registrants.

Société Générale S.A.

and SGAS agreed to a $75,000,000 civil monetary penalty, to cease and desist from further violations as charged.

Société Générale S.A.

and SGAS also agreed to comply with certain conditions and remedial undertakings, including conducting a comprehensive review of policies, providing training related to the preservation of electronic communications, continuing remediation efforts, and periodically updating the CFTC on its remediation efforts and compliance.

Société Générale S.A.

is not affiliated with USO or USCF.

13 unchanged sentences

Listed below are the civil, administrative, and/or criminal proceedings pending, on appeal, or concluded by The Bank of Nova Scotia in the past five (5) years that are material to The Bank of Nova Scotia serving as an OTC swaps counterparty to USO.

On May 11, 2023 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an order simultaneously filing and settling charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia and its affiliate, Scotia Capital USA Inc.

On May 11, 2023 the CFTC issued an order simultaneously filing and settling charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia and its affiliate, Scotia Capital USA Inc.

(a futures commission merchant).

The order charged The Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotia Capital USA Inc.

with failing to maintain, preserve, or produce records that were required to be kept under Commodity Futures Trading Commission recordkeeping requirements and failing to diligently supervise matters related to their businesses as Commodity Futures Trading Commission registrants.

Pursuant to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s order, the charges are attributable to the use of unapproved communication methods, including messages sent via personal text and WhatsApp by The Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotia Capital USA Inc.

with failing to maintain, preserve, or produce records that were required to be kept under CFTC recordkeeping requirements and failing to diligently supervise matters related to their businesses as CFTC registrants.

Pursuant to the CFTC’s order, the charges are attributable to the use of unapproved communication methods, including messages sent via personal text and WhatsApp by The Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotia Capital USA Inc.

The Bank of Nova Scotia and Scotia Capital USA Inc.

agreed to pay a $15

million penalty to settle the charges with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

agreed to pay a $15 million penalty to settle the charges with the CFTC.

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a parallel order on May 11, 2023 against Scotia Capital USA Inc.

1 unchanged sentence

Scotia Capital USA Inc.

agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty to settle the charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 19, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed and settled charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia for swap dealer compliance failures, failing to supervise its swap dealer activities diligently, and making false or misleading statements to Commodity Futures Trading Commission staff during the course of that agency’s enforcement investigation.

agreed to pay a $7.5 million penalty to settle the charges with the SEC.

On August 19, 2020, the CFTC filed and settled charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia for swap dealer compliance failures, failing to supervise its swap dealer activities diligently, and making false or misleading statements to CFTC staff during the course of that agency’s enforcement investigation.

The order found that, at various times between December 31, 2012 and August 19, 2020 The Bank of Nova Scotia failed to comply with swap dealer business conduct standards requirements for pre-trade mid-market marks by providing counterparties with marks that were inaccurate, untimely, or both, or failing to provide marks entirely.

The order also found that The Bank of Nova Scotia’s counterparty onboarding process, pre-trade mid-market marks and audio recordkeeping, and chief compliance officer failed to comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulations and that The Bank of Nova Scotia failed to supervise its swap dealer activities diligently.

To settle the charges with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $50 million penalty, remediate the compliance failures, and retain an outside monitor for three years.

In April 2024 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued an addendum to its order to extend the period within which The Bank of Nova Scotia must have a monitor in place by six months.

On August 19, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed and settled charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia for several of its traders’ placement of orders to buy or sell certain gold and silver futures contracts traded on the Commodity Exchange Inc.

The order also found that The Bank of Nova Scotia’s counterparty onboarding process, pre-trade mid-market marks and audio recordkeeping, and chief compliance officer failed to comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations and that The Bank of Nova Scotia failed to supervise its swap dealer activities diligently.

To settle the charges with the CFTC The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $50 million penalty, remediate the compliance failures, and retain an outside monitor for three years.

In April 2024 the CFTC issued an addendum to its order to extend the period within which The Bank of Nova Scotia must have a monitor in place by six months.

On August 19, 2020, the CFTC filed and settled charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia for several of its traders’ placement of orders to buy or sell certain gold and silver futures contracts traded on the Commodity Exchange Inc.

with the intent to cancel those orders before execution (i.e., “spoofing”).

The Bank of Nova Scotia had previously been fined $800,000 in a 2018 Commodity Futures Trading Commission order for spoofing in the gold and silver futures markets but, according to the August 19, 2020 order, the 2018 order did not take into account the full scope of the spoofing behavior due to statements made The Bank of Nova Scotia in connection with the 2018 order that that were later proven to be false (the August 19, 2020 order alleges that the false statements were in part due to incomplete and inconsistent recordkeeping).

The Bank of Nova Scotia had previously been fined $800,000 in a 2018 CFTC order for spoofing in the gold and silver futures markets but, according to the August 19, 2020 order, the 2018 order did not take into account the full scope of the spoofing behavior due to statements made The Bank of Nova Scotia in connection with the 2018 order that that were later proven to be false (the August 19, 2020 order alleges that the false statements were in part due to incomplete and inconsistent recordkeeping).

Accordingly, the August 19, 2020 order was intended to address the broader scope of spoofing behavior.

To settle the charges with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $42 million penalty, disgorgement of $11,828,912, and restitution in the amount of $6,622,190.

To settle the charges with the CFTC, The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $42 million penalty, disgorgement of $11,828,912, and restitution in the amount of $6,622,190.

In a parallel action, the United States Department of Justice announced entry of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with The Bank of Nova Scotia, deferring criminal prosecution on charges of attempted price manipulation and wire fraud.

Under the Agreement, The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to, among other things, pay $60.4 million in criminal fines, forfeiture, and restitution.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s order provided for offsets for certain payments made pursuant to the related Department of Justice criminal action.

On August 19, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed and settled charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia for violating sections 6(c)(2) and 9(a)(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act for the misrepresentations and omissions made to the Commission, the Commodity Exchange, Inc.

The CFTC’s order provided for offsets for certain payments made pursuant to the related Department of Justice criminal action.

In May 2021, The Bank of Nova Scotia was named as a defendant in a putative class action that was brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs who transacted in certain gold and silver futures contracts during the period that The Bank of Nova Scotia was found to have been spoofing in the relevant gold and silver futures markets.

The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $6,600,000 settlement amount.

The settlement was granted final court approval on January 1, 2024.

On August 19, 2020, the CFTC filed and settled charges against The Bank of Nova Scotia for violating sections 6(c)(2) and 9(a)(4) of the Commodity Exchange Act for the misrepresentations and omissions made to the CFTC, the Commodity Exchange, Inc.

and the National Futures Association between April 2016 and October 2017 in connection with spoofing in the precious metals markets, which was the subject of the concurrent August 19, 2020 order described in the immediately preceding paragraph.

The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $17 million penalty to settle the charges with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The Bank of Nova Scotia agreed to pay a $17 million penalty to settle the charges with the CFTC.

The Bank of Nova Scotia is not affiliated with USO or USCF.

11 unchanged sentences

all or substantially all of an investment in USO could be lost.

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

● An investment in USO may provide little or no diversification benefits.

Thus, in a declining market, USO may have no gains to offset losses from other investments, and an investor may suffer losses on an investment in USO 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 USO’s investments or assets which, in turn, could cause the loss of your investment in USO.

● Historical performance of USO and the Benchmark Oil Futures Contracts is not indicative of future performance.

129 unchanged sentences

settlement prices of Oil Futures Contracts traded on the NYMEX and ICE Futures, which are the same prices used for valuing such contracts in determining USO’s official end of day NAV.

Therefore, a static indicative fund value is disseminated between the time the settlement price is published (at approximately 2:30 p.m.

Therefore, a static indicative fund value is disseminated

between the time the settlement price is published (at approximately 2:30 p.m.

Eastern time) for NYMEX and ICE Futures and the close of the NYSE Arca core trading session.

5 unchanged sentences

While the end of day value of Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents are included in USO’s prior end of day NAV, to which changes in the value of Oil Futures Contracts and Other Oil-Related Investments are applied in calculating the indicative fund value, intraday changes in the value of Treasuries, cash and cash equivalents are not applied in calculating the indicative fund value ICE Data Indices, LLC disseminates the indicative fund value through the facilities of CTA/CQ High Speed Lines.

In addition, the indicative fund value is available through

online information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.

In addition, the indicative fund value is available through online information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.

Dissemination of the indicative fund value provides additional information that is not otherwise available to the public and is useful to investors and market professionals in connection with the trading of USO shares on the NYSE Arca.

14 unchanged sentences

Authorized Participants pay a transaction fee of $1,000 to USO for each order they place to create one or more Creation Baskets or to redeem one or more Redemption Baskets.

The transaction fee may be reduced, increased, or otherwise changed by USCF.

Effective January 1, 2026 the transaction fee amount paid by Authorized Participants to create or redeem one or more Creation Baskets or Redemption Baskets was reduced from $1,000 per order to $350 per order.The transaction fee may be reduced, increased, or otherwise changed by USCF.

Authorized Participants who make deposits with USO in exchange for baskets receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any kind from either USO or USCF, and no such person will have any obligation or responsibility to USO or USCF to affect any sale or resale of shares.

11 unchanged sentences

On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Marketing Agent to create one or more baskets.

For purposes of processing purchase and redemption orders, a “business day” means any day other than a day when any of the NYSE Arca, the

NYMEX or the NYSE is closed for regular trading.

For purposes of processing purchase and redemption orders, a “business day” means any day other than a day when any of the NYSE Arca, the NYMEX or the NYSE is closed for regular trading.

Purchase orders must be placed by 12:00 p.m.

68 unchanged sentences

An order may include multiple baskets.

The transaction fee may be reduced, increased or otherwise changed by USCF.

13 unchanged sentences

Shares trade in the secondary market on the NYSE Arca.

Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices

that are lower or higher relative to their NAV per share.

Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher relative to their NAV per share.

The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the NAV per share may be influenced by various factors, including, among other things, the number of investors who seek to purchase or sell shares in the secondary market, availability of Creation Baskets, the liquidity of the Oil Futures Contracts market and the market for Other Oil-Related Investments.

33 unchanged sentences

The CEA provides for varying degrees of regulation of commodity interest transactions depending upon:

(1) the type of instrument being traded (e.g., contracts for future

delivery, forwards, options, swaps or spot contracts), (2) the type of commodity underlying the instrument (distinctions are made between instruments based on agricultural commodities, energy and metals commodities and financial commodities), (3) the nature of the parties to the transaction (e.g., retail or eligible contract participant), (4) whether the transaction is entered into on a principal-to-principal or intermediated basis, (5) the type of market on which the transaction occurs, and (6) whether the transaction is subject to clearing through a clearing organization.

(1) the type of instrument being traded (e.g., contracts for future delivery, forwards, options, swaps or spot contracts), (2) the type of commodity underlying the instrument (distinctions are made between instruments based on agricultural commodities, energy and metals commodities and financial commodities), (3) the nature of the parties to the transaction (e.g., retail or eligible contract participant), (4) whether the transaction is entered into on a principal-to-principal or intermediated basis, (5) the type of market on which the transaction occurs, and (6) whether the transaction is subject to clearing through a clearing organization.

The offer and sale of shares of USO, as well as shares of each Related Public Fund, is registered under the 1933 Act.

92 unchanged sentences

CFTC regulations require enhanced customer protections, risk management programs, internal monitoring and controls, capital and liquidity standards, customer disclosures and auditing and examination programs for FCMs.

These regulations are intended to afford greater assurances to market participants that customer segregated funds and secured amounts are protected, customers are provided with appropriate notice of the risks of futures trading and of the FCMs with which they may choose to do business, FCMs are monitoring and managing risks in a robust manner, the capital and liquidity of FCMs are strengthened to safeguard the continued operations, and

the auditing and examination programs of the CFTC and the self-regulatory organizations are monitoring the activities of FCMs in a thorough manner.

USO’s investors are afforded prescribed rights for reparations under the CEA against USCF (as a registered commodity pool operator), as well as its respective employees who are required to be registered under the CEA.

68 unchanged sentences

USCF owns trademark registrations for UNITED STATES OIL FUND (U.S.

3240929) for “Investment services in the field of oil futures contracts and other oil interests,” in use since April 30, 2006, USO UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP (and Flame Design) (U.S.

4440928) for “Financial investment services in the field of oil futures contracts, cash-settled options on oil futures contracts, forward contracts for oil, over-the-counter transactions based on the price of oil, and indices based on the foregoing,” in use since September 30, 2012, and THE ORIGINAL OIL ETF, (U.S.

4472747) for “Fund investment services in the field of oil futures contracts, cash-settled options on oil futures contracts, forward contracts for oil, over-the-counter transactions based on the price of oil, and indices based on the foregoing,” in use since September 23, 2013.

3240929) for “Investment services in the field of oil futures contracts and other oil interests,” in use since April 30, 2006, and USO UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP (and Flame Design) (U.S.

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.

10 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