Good afternoon, dear friends and supporters.

We are about to enter another autumn, leaving another August behind. Meanwhile, the case we filed in the United States has undergone some major developments, which have not been met with the fanfare we had hoped for. The fact that we have brought evidence of a massive fraudulent scheme—fictitious trading—which is causing the loss of thousands of jobs, income, and tax revenues, and shaking investors confidence in the United States Regulated Exchanges, which was and, I hope, remains one of the important points of concern for Congress, has not yet been taken seriously by the judges.

We are now at a very important point, and it is time to provide a brief chronology of our events over the past four years.

Only in March 2019 did we receive proof and understand that UBS was running a fraudulent scheme on the US-registered exchanges.

Our original complaint (OC), filed on October 28, 2019, in the Southern District Court of New York (SDNY), was denied class-action status.

After our only conference with the judge, followed by the long journey to serve UBS AG in Zurich, Switzerland (in mandatory German) under the Hague Convention, we were surprised by the denial of discovery and a pro bono attorney for us. Our discovery request was very simple: an order for UBS AG to produce any proof that our orders were actually sent to the NYSE, as UBS had represented to us, charged us for, and debited our accounts in US dollars.

A new conference with the judge was also denied, as was our application to add parties.

We did our best to present our case, amending the OC from a class action to a private action in the First Amended Complaint (FAC). We then added UBS Bahamas Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). Finally, we amended the technical errors by not re-alleging all the claims in the SAC from the FAC, resulting in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC).

On January 4, 2023, the TAC (Dkt. 110), supported by the Affidavit, was dismissed for lack of peronal jurisdiction (Dkt. 135).

On January 5, 2023, we filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 137) and this was granted in Forma Pauperis “satisfies each of the Rule 24 criteria and presents non-
frivolous issues for appellate consideration.” (Dkt. 140),

But our Motion for an Attorney (Dkt. 144) was denied the (Dkt. 145).

On August 10, 2023, our Appeal and subsequent motions were all dismissed without ever being heard, or us being given the opportunity to present them (Dkt. 146).

Reading the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2nd Circuit), considering that the Appellant Court can dismiss cases sua sponte (without a hearing, as in our case) only when the case is frivolous and a clear abuse of the court’s system, it appears that the 2nd Circuit only addressed the denial of an attorney, while our entire action remains pending.

On August 21, 2023, we filed a Motion for Relief from Interlocutory Order (Dkt. 147).

In simple words, this means that since the 2nd Circuit did not hear us, did not allow us to file a brief and present our case, we interpret its decision as only concerning the denial of a pro bono attorney. The case has now been returned to the SDNY, and with the Motion for Relief, we are asking the judge to hear the case.

A legal jungle should not distract us from the very simple and clear fact that brokers are not sending all orders to the exchanges, and the damages of these actions are much larger and could easily exceed Madoff’s case.

So, please, wish the best for Justice and Equity to win again.

With blessings,

Irina