Navellier & Associates Inc.

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Items 11.C., 11.D.,
11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. of Form ADV.
Regulatory Action
Check item(s) being responded to:
11.C(1)
11.C(2)
11.C(3)
11.C(4)
11.C(5)
11.D(1)
11.D(2)
11.D(3)
11.D(4)
11.D(5)
11.E(1)
11.E(2)
11.E(3)
11.E(4)
11.F.
11.G.
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page. 
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Items 11.C., 11.D., 11.E., 11.F. or 11.G. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. If an event gives rise to actions by more than one regulator, provide details for each action on a separate DRP.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
CRD
Number:
107568
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES INC
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
1792046
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
NAVELLIER, LOUIS, GENE
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item
11.D(4), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Regulatory Action initiated by:
SEC   
Other Federal   
State   
SRO
Foreign

(Full name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, federal, state, or SRO) 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
2.
Principal Sanction:
Other
Other Sanctions: 
INITIATED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING (PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 206 (1) AND (2)
OF INVESTMENT ADVISORS ACT; DISGORGEMENT; DEREGISTRATION OF NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES INC. AND BAR FROM ASSOCIATION OF LOUIS GENE
NAVELLIER AND SEEKING PERMANENT BAR AGAINST NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES INC. AND AGAINST LOUIS NAVELLIER.
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
06/12/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
FILE NO 3-19826
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES INC
6.
Principal Product Type:
Other
Other Product Types: 
ETF'S
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
ON AUGUST 31, 2017, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC") FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS ALLEGING THAT NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ("NAI") AND LOUIS NAVELLIER ("LN") EACH ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 206(1),
206(2), AND 206(4) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISORS ACT OF 1940 AND RULE 206(4)-1(A)(5); AND ALTERNATIVELY, THAT LOUIS NAVELLIER ALLEGEDLY
AIDED AND ABETTED NAI'S ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. NAI AND LOUIS NAVELLIER EACH STRENUOUSLY DENY THAT THEY COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS. THE SEC CHARGES BASICALLY THAT NAI'S VIREO MARKETING MATERIALS SUPPOSEDLY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT NAI'S VIREO
ALPHASECTOR STRATEGIES WERE LIVE TRADED SINCE 2001. NAI'S VIREO MARKETING MATERIALS MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. THE STATEMENT NAI
ACTUALLY DISSEMINATED WAS TRUE. THE SEC ALSO ASSERTED THAT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER DID NOT HAVE "SUPPORT" FOR THE STATEMENT NAI
MADE. HOWEVER, NAI DID HAVE SUPPORT FOR ITS TRUE STATEMENT FROM NASDAQ OMX AND FROM JAY MORTON. DESPITE THE SEC'S LACK OF ANY
EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SEC, HOLDING THAT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER VIOLATED
SECTIONS 206(1) AND 206(2). THE DISTRICT COURT SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDED THE SEC OVER $29.3 MILLION IN "DISGORGEMENT" AND PREJUDGMENT
INTEREST PLUS $2.5 MILLION IN PENALTIES. THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO ENJOINED NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER FROM VIOLATING SECTIONS 206(1) AND
(2) IN THE FUTURE. NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER APPEALED TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATEMENT IN NAI'S
MARKETING MATERIAL WAS TRUE, AND THAT THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY FEES AND GAINS WERE LEGITIMATELY EARNED BY NAI. IN FACT, THE
SUPPOSEDLY "DEFRAUDED" NAI CLIENTS GOT EXACTLY THE INVESTMENT ADVICE THEY HIRED NAI TO PROVIDE, SUFFERED NO PECUNIARY HARM, AND
RECEIVED OVER $221 MILLION IN PROFITS FROM NAI'S VIREO INVESTMENT ADVICE. ON JULY 16, 2024, THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT IGNORING THE LACK OF SEC EVIDENCE OF "FRAUD". NAI AND LN FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH THE FIRST CIRCUIT
DENIED. ON MARCH 3, 2025 LOUIS NAVELLIER AND NAI FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN THE
FIRST CIRCUIT'S DECISION, BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH LIU AND GOVIL AND OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. THE
U.S SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE PETITION, BUT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER PETITIONED ON JULY 1, 2025 FOR A REHEARING ASKING THE
COURT TO CONSIDER THE CASE. ON AUGUST 18, 2025, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO RECONSIDER ITS DENIAL OF THE
NAVELLIER PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. ON JANUARY 9, 2026, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THE SRIPETCH V SEC TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FIRST CIRCUIT NAVELLIER DECISION (AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT SRIPETCH DECISION) AND THE SECOND
CIRCUIT GOVIL DECISION TO DECIDE IF THE SEC CAN LEGALLY BE AWARDED DISCOURAGEMENT IF THE VIOLATORS VICTIM'S SUFFERED NO
PECUNIARY HARM FROM THE VIOLATORS ALLEGED WRONGFUL MISCONDUCT. IF THE SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH GOVIL AND NAVELLIER'S
POSITION, THEN THE DECISION IN NAVELLIER CASE WILL EFFECTIVELY BE DEEMED WRONG AND NAVELLIER WILL MOVE TO HAVE THE $29 MILLION
DISCOURAGEMENT AWARD VACATED. ON JUNE 12, 2020, THE SEC INSTITUTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE SEC TO SANCTION OR
POSSIBLY DEREGISTER NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER AND TO BAN THEM FROM BEING INVESTMENT ADVISERS. THE SEC HAS MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TO BAN NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER. THEY ARE STRENUOUSLY OPPOSING THE MOTION BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED NO VIOLATIONS AND
DISGORGEMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER A CORRECT READING OF THE LIU DECISION AND UNDER GOVIL. THE MOTION IS PENDING.
8.
Current Status?      
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, regulatory action appealed to (SEC, SRO, Federal or State Court) and Date Appeal Filed:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 13 only.
10. How was matter resolved:
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:

12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $
 Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
 Disgorgement/Restitution
 Censure
 Cease and Desist/Injunction
 Bar
 Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions Ordered:
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived: 
13. Provide a brief summary of details related to the action status and (or) disposition and include relevant terms, conditions and dates (your response
must fit within the space provided).
THE SEC'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IS STILL PENDING.

Includes form instructions and options. Options shown in this text do not identify which boxes were selected.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
This Disclosure Reporting Page (DRP ADV) is an 
INITIAL OR
AMENDED response used to report details for affirmative responses to Item 11.H. of Part
1A or Item 2.F. of Part 1B of Form ADV.
Civil Judicial
Check Part 1A item(s) being responded to:
11.H(1)(a)
11.H(1)(b)
11.H(1)(c)
11.H(2)
Check Part 1B item(s) being responded to:
2.F(1)
2.F(2)
2.F(3)
2.F(4)
2.F(5)
Use a separate DRP for each event or proceeding . The same event or proceeding may be reported for more than one person or entity using one DRP. File
with a completed Execution Page.
One event may result in more than one affirmative answer to Item 11.H. of Part 1A or Item 2.F. of Part 1B. Use only one DRP to report details related to the
same event. Unrelated civil judicial actions must be reported on separate DRPs.
PART I
A.  The person(s) or entity(ies) for whom this DRP is being filed is (are):
You (the advisory firm)
You and one or more of your advisory affiliates
One or more of your advisory affiliates
If this DRP is being filed for an advisory affiliate, give the full name of the advisory affiliate below (for individuals, Last name, First name, Middle name). 
If the advisory affiliate has a CRD number, provide that number. If not, indicate "non-registered" by checking the appropriate box.
ADV DRP - ADVISORY AFFILIATE
CRD
Number:
107568
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES INC
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
1792046
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
NAVELLIER, LOUIS, GENE
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)

This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because the advisory affiliate(s) is no longer associated with the adviser.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because: (1) the event or proceeding occurred more than ten years ago or (2) the adviser is
registered or applying for registration with the SEC or reporting as an exempt reporting adviser with the SEC and the event was resolved in the
adviser's or advisory affiliate's favor.
If you are registered or registering with a state securities authority , you may remove a DRP for an event you reported only in response to Item 11.H.
(1)(a), and only if that event occurred more than ten years ago. If you are registered or registering with the SEC, you may remove a DRP for any
event listed in Item 11 that occurred more than ten years ago.
This DRP should be removed from the ADV record because it was filed in error, such as due to a clerical or data-entry mistake. Explain the
circumstances: 
B.
If the advisory affiliate is registered through the IARD system or CRD system, has the advisory affiliate submitted a DRP (with Form ADV, BD or U-4) to
the IARD or CRD for the event? If the answer is "Yes," no other information on this DRP must be provided.
 Yes
 No
NOTE: The completion of this form does not relieve the advisory affiliate of its obligation to update its IARD or CRD records.
PART II
1.  Court Action initiated by: (Name of regulator, foreign financial regulatory authority, SRO, commodities exchange, agency, firm, private plaintiff, etc.) 
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
2.
Principal Relief Sought:
Civil Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)
Other Relief Sought: 
DISGORGEMENT, INJUNCTION, BAR FROM INDUSTRY
3.
Filing Date of Court Action (MM/DD/YYYY):
08/31/2017
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Principal Product Type:
Other
Other Product Types: 
INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
5.
Formal Action was brought in (include name of Federal, State or Foreign Court, Location of Court - City or County and State or Country, Docket/Case
Number): 
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - BOSTON -MA - CASE 1:17-CV-11633
6.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the civil judicial action (if applicable): 
NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES INC.
7.
Describe the allegations related to this civil action (your response must fit within the space provided): 
ON AUGUST 31, 2017, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC") FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS ALLEGING THAT NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ("NAI") AND LOUIS NAVELLIER ("LN") EACH ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 206(1),
206(2), AND 206(4) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISORS ACT OF 1940 AND RULE 206(4)-1(A)(5); AND ALTERNATIVELY, THAT LOUIS NAVELLIER ALLEGEDLY
AIDED AND ABETTED NAI'S ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. NAI AND LOUIS NAVELLIER EACH STRENUOUSLY DENY THAT THEY COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS. THE SEC CHARGES BASICALLY THAT NAI'S VIREO MARKETING MATERIALS SUPPOSEDLY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT NAI'S VIREO
ALPHASECTOR STRATEGIES WERE LIVE TRADED SINCE 2001. NAI'S VIREO MARKETING MATERIALS MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. THE STATEMENT NAI
ACTUALLY DISSEMINATED WAS TRUE. THE SEC ALSO ASSERTED THAT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER DID NOT HAVE "SUPPORT" FOR THE STATEMENT NAI
MADE. HOWEVER, NAI DID HAVE SUPPORT FOR ITS TRUE STATEMENT FROM NASDAQ OMX AND FROM JAY MORTON. DESPITE THE SEC'S LACK OF ANY
EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SEC, HOLDING THAT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER VIOLATED
SECTIONS 206(1) AND 206(2). THE DISTRICT COURT SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDED THE SEC OVER $29.3 MILLION IN "DISGORGEMENT" AND PREJUDGMENT
INTEREST PLUS $2.5 MILLION IN PENALTIES. THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO ENJOINED NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER FROM VIOLATING SECTIONS 206(1) AND
(2) IN THE FUTURE. NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER APPEALED TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATEMENT IN NAI'S
MARKETING MATERIAL WAS TRUE, AND THAT THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY FEES AND GAINS WERE LEGITIMATELY EARNED BY NAI. IN FACT, THE
SUPPOSEDLY "DEFRAUDED" NAI CLIENTS GOT EXACTLY THE INVESTMENT ADVICE THEY HIRED NAI TO PROVIDE, SUFFERED NO PECUNIARY HARM, AND
RECEIVED OVER $221 MILLION IN PROFITS FROM NAI'S VIREO INVESTMENT ADVICE. ON JULY 16, 2024, THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT IGNORING THE LACK OF SEC EVIDENCE OF "FRAUD". NAI AND LN FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH THE FIRST CIRCUIT
DENIED. ON MARCH 3, 2025 LOUIS NAVELLIER AND NAI FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN THE
FIRST CIRCUIT'S DECISION, BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH LIU AND GOVIL AND OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. THE
U.S SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE PETITION, BUT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER PETITIONED ON JULY 1, 2025 FOR A REHEARING ASKING THE
COURT TO CONSIDER THE CASE. ON AUGUST 18, 2025, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO RECONSIDER ITS DENIAL OF THE
NAVELLIER PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. ON JANUARY 9, 2026, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THE SRIPETCH V SEC TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FIRST CIRCUIT NAVELLIER DECISION (AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT SRIPETCH DECISION) AND THE SECOND
CIRCUIT GOVIL DECISION TO DECIDE IF THE SEC CAN LEGALLY BE AWARDED DISCOURAGEMENT IF THE VIOLATORS VICTIM'S SUFFERED NO
PECUNIARY HARM FROM THE VIOLATORS ALLEGED WRONGFUL MISCONDUCT. IF THE SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH GOVIL AND NAVELLIER'S
POSITION, THEN THE DECISION IN NAVELLIER CASE WILL EFFECTIVELY BE DEEMED WRONG AND NAVELLIER WILL MOVE TO HAVE THE $29 MILLION

DISCOURAGEMENT AWARD VACATED. ON JUNE 12, 2020, THE SEC INSTITUTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE SEC TO SANCTION OR
POSSIBLY DEREGISTER NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER AND TO BAN THEM FROM BEING INVESTMENT ADVISERS. THE SEC HAS MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TO BAN NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER. THEY ARE STRENUOUSLY OPPOSING THE MOTION BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED NO VIOLATIONS AND
DISGORGEMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER A CORRECT READING OF THE LIU DECISION AND UNDER GOVIL. THE MOTION IS PENDING.
8.
Current Status? 
 Pending
 On Appeal
 Final
9.
If on appeal, action appealed to (provide name of court) and Date Appeal Filed (MM/DD/YYYY): 
FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NUMBER 20-1581 (FILED JUNE 4, 2020); 21-1857 (FILED OCTOBER 28, 2021); 22-1733 (FILED OCTOBER 3,
2022); 23-1509 (FILED JUNE 21, 2023) SEE ITEM 7 ABOVE
10. If pending, date notice/process was served (MM/DD/YYYY):
08/31/2017
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
PENDING ON APPEAL; APPELLATE DECISION ON JULY 16, 2024 FOR WHICH EN BANC REVIEW WAS DENIED ON OCTOBER 7, 2024. A PETITION TO THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 2024. SEE ITEM 7 ABOVE
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 14 only.
11. How was matter resolved:
Other
12. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 
07/16/2024
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
PETITIONED FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC APPELLATE DECISION JULY 16, 2024 WAS DENIED. NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER ARE PETITIONED
TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE THE DECISION. SEE ITEM 7 ABOVE
13. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered or Relief Granted(check appropriate items)?
Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 2,500,000.00
Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
Disgorgement/Restitution
Censure
Cease and Desist/Injunction
Bar
Suspension
B.
Other Sanctions:
C.
Sanction detail: if suspended, enjoined or barred, provide duration including start date and capacities affected (General Securities Principal,
Financial Operations Principal, etc.). If requalification by exam/retraining was a condition of the sanction, provide length of time given to
requalify/retrain, type of exam required and whether condition has been satisfied. If disposition resulted in a fine, penalty, restitution,
disgorgement, or monetary compensation, provide total amount, portion levied against you or an advisory affiliate, date paid and if any portion
of penalty was waived:
NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER ARE ENJOINED FROM VIOLATING 206(1) AND 206(2); DISGORGEMENT AND INTEREST $29.3 MILLION; $2.5 MILLION
PENALTY; ALL AMOUNTS ARE BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR RESOLUTION AND FINAL DETERMINATION.
14. Provide a brief summary of circumstances related to the action(s), allegation(s), disposition(s) and/or finding(s) disclosed above (your response must
fit within the space provided). 
ON AUGUST 31, 2017, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC") FILED A LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS ALLEGING THAT NAVELLIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ("NAI") AND LOUIS NAVELLIER ("LN") EACH ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 206(1),
206(2), AND 206(4) OF THE INVESTMENT ADVISORS ACT OF 1940 AND RULE 206(4)-1(A)(5); AND ALTERNATIVELY, THAT LOUIS NAVELLIER ALLEGEDLY
AIDED AND ABETTED NAI'S ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. NAI AND LOUIS NAVELLIER EACH STRENUOUSLY DENY THAT THEY COMMITTED THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS. THE SEC CHARGES BASICALLY THAT NAI'S VIREO MARKETING MATERIALS SUPPOSEDLY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT NAI'S VIREO
ALPHASECTOR STRATEGIES WERE LIVE TRADED SINCE 2001. NAI'S VIREO MARKETING MATERIALS MADE NO SUCH CLAIM. THE STATEMENT NAI
ACTUALLY DISSEMINATED WAS TRUE. THE SEC ALSO ASSERTED THAT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER DID NOT HAVE "SUPPORT" FOR THE STATEMENT NAI
MADE. HOWEVER, NAI DID HAVE SUPPORT FOR ITS TRUE STATEMENT FROM NASDAQ OMX AND FROM JAY MORTON. DESPITE THE SEC'S LACK OF ANY
EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SEC, HOLDING THAT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER VIOLATED
SECTIONS 206(1) AND 206(2). THE DISTRICT COURT SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDED THE SEC OVER $29.3 MILLION IN "DISGORGEMENT" AND PREJUDGMENT
INTEREST PLUS $2.5 MILLION IN PENALTIES. THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO ENJOINED NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER FROM VIOLATING SECTIONS 206(1) AND
(2) IN THE FUTURE. NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER APPEALED TO THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE STATEMENT IN NAI'S
MARKETING MATERIAL WAS TRUE, AND THAT THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY FEES AND GAINS WERE LEGITIMATELY EARNED BY NAI. IN FACT, THE
SUPPOSEDLY "DEFRAUDED" NAI CLIENTS GOT EXACTLY THE INVESTMENT ADVICE THEY HIRED NAI TO PROVIDE, SUFFERED NO PECUNIARY HARM, AND
RECEIVED OVER $221 MILLION IN PROFITS FROM NAI'S VIREO INVESTMENT ADVICE. ON JULY 16, 2024, THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT IGNORING THE LACK OF SEC EVIDENCE OF "FRAUD". NAI AND LN FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH THE FIRST CIRCUIT
DENIED. ON MARCH 3, 2025 LOUIS NAVELLIER AND NAI FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN THE
FIRST CIRCUIT'S DECISION, BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH LIU AND GOVIL AND OTHER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. THE
U.S SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE PETITION, BUT NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER PETITIONED ON JULY 1, 2025 FOR A REHEARING ASKING THE
COURT TO CONSIDER THE CASE. ON AUGUST 18, 2025, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO RECONSIDER ITS DENIAL OF THE
NAVELLIER PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. ON JANUARY 9, 2026, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THE SRIPETCH V SEC TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FIRST CIRCUIT NAVELLIER DECISION (AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT SRIPETCH DECISION) AND THE SECOND

CIRCUIT GOVIL DECISION TO DECIDE IF THE SEC CAN LEGALLY BE AWARDED DISCOURAGEMENT IF THE VIOLATORS VICTIM'S SUFFERED NO
PECUNIARY HARM FROM THE VIOLATORS ALLEGED WRONGFUL MISCONDUCT. IF THE SUPREME COURT AGREES WITH GOVIL AND NAVELLIER'S
POSITION, THEN THE DECISION IN NAVELLIER CASE WILL EFFECTIVELY BE DEEMED WRONG AND NAVELLIER WILL MOVE TO HAVE THE $29 MILLION
DISCOURAGEMENT AWARD VACATED. ON JUNE 12, 2020, THE SEC INSTITUTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE SEC TO SANCTION OR
POSSIBLY DEREGISTER NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER AND TO BAN THEM FROM BEING INVESTMENT ADVISERS. THE SEC HAS MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TO BAN NAI AND MR. NAVELLIER. THEY ARE STRENUOUSLY OPPOSING THE MOTION BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED NO VIOLATIONS AND
DISGORGEMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER A CORRECT READING OF THE LIU DECISION AND UNDER GOVIL. THE MOTION IS PENDING.