Filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
File No. 333-178823
UNITED STATES GASOLINE FUND, LP
Supplement dated October 10, 2013
to
Prospectus dated April 29, 2013, as amended May 15, 2013
This supplement contains information which amends, supplements or modifies certain information contained in the Prospectus of United States Gasoline Fund, LP (“UGA”) dated April 29, 2013, as amended May 15, 2013. Please read it and keep it with your Prospectus for future reference.
The disclosure in the Prospectus regarding the Futures Commission Merchant is amended as follows:
On October 8, 2013, USCF entered into a Futures and Cleared Derivatives Transactions Customer Account Agreement with RBC Capital to serve as UGA’s FCM. This agreement requires RBC Capital to provide services to UGA, as of October 10, 2013, in connection with the purchase and sale of Futures Contracts and Other Gasoline-Related Investments that may be purchased or sold by or through RBC Capital for UGA’s account. UGA pays RBC Capital commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA.
RBC Capital’s primary address is 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2500, Chicago, Illinois 60661. From UGA’s commencement of trading to October 10, 2013, UBS Securities was a futures clearing broker for UGA. Effective October 10, 2013, RBC Capital became the futures clearing broker for UGA. Both RBC Capital and UBS Securities are registered in the U.S. with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority as a broker-dealer and with the CFTC as a FCM. RBC Capital and UBS Securities are members of various U.S. futures and securities exchanges.
RBC is a large broker-dealer subject to many different complex legal and regulatory requirements. As a result, certain of RBC’s regulators may from time to time conduct investigations, initiate enforcement proceedings and/or enter into settlements with RBC with respect to issues raised in various investigations. RBC complies fully with its regulators in all investigations being conducted and in all settlements it reaches. In addition, RBC 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 complies fully with all settlements it reaches and all orders, awards and judgments made against it.
RBC 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 as a broker-dealer. 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 is also involved, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding RBC’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 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 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 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.
On March 11, 2013, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities entered a consent order settling an administrative complaint against RBC, which alleged that RBC failed to follow its own procedures with respect to monthly account reviews and failed to maintain copies of the monthly account reviews with respect to certain accounts that James Hankins Jr. maintained at the firm in violation of N.J.S.A. 49:3-58(a)(2)(xi) and 49:3-59(b). Without admitting or denying the findings of fact and conclusions of law, RBC consented to a civil monetary penalty of $150,000 (of which $100,000 was suspended as a result of the firm’s cooperation) and to pay disgorgement of $300,000.
On May 2, 2012, the Massachusetts Securities Division entered a consent order settling an administrative complaint against RBC, which alleged that RBC recommended unsuitable products to its brokerage and advisory clients and failed to supervise its registered representatives’ sales of inverse and leveraged ETFs in violation of Section 204(a)(2) of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act (“MUSA”). Without admitting or denying the allegations of fact, RBC consented to permanently cease and desist from violations of MUSA, pay restitution of $2.9 million to the investors who purchased the inverse and leveraged ETFs and pay a civil monetary penalty of $250,000.
On September 27, 2011, the SEC commenced and settled an administrative proceeding against RBC for willful violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the 1933 Act for negligently selling the collateralized debt obligations to five Wisconsin school districts despite concerns about the suitability of the product. The firm agreed to pay disgorgement of $6.6 million, prejudgment interest of $1.8 million, and a civil monetary penalty of $22 million.
On February 24, 2009, the SEC commenced and settled an administrative proceeding against RBC for willful violations of Section 15B(c)(1) of the 1934 Act and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rules G-17, G-20 and G-27, related to municipal expenses in connection with ratings agency trips. The firm was censured and paid a civil monetary penalty of $125,000.
On June 9, 2009, the SEC commenced and settled a civil action against RBC for willful violations of Section 15(c) of the 1934 Act, in connection with auction rate securities (ARS). The firm agreed to repurchase ARS owned by certain retail customers and to use best efforts to provide ineligible customers opportunities to liquidate ARS, and other ancillary relief.
Please see RBC’s Form BD for more details.
RBC Capital will only act as a clearing broker for UGA and as such will be paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA. Prior to October 10, 2013, UBS Securities acted only as clearing broker for UGA and as such was paid commissions for executing and clearing trades on behalf of UGA. Neither RBC Capital nor UBS Securities will act in any supervisory capacity with respect to USCF or participate in the management of USCF or UGA.
Neither RBC Capital nor UBS Securities is affiliated with UGA or USCF. Therefore, neither USCF nor UGA believe that there are any conflicts of interest with RBC Capital and UBS Securities or their trading principals arising from their acting as UGA’s FCM.