Elliott Investment Management L.P.

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:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P.
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
MANSFIELD (MAURITIUS)
LIMITED
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
SUFFOLK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P.
(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 BOARD OF INDIA
2.
Principal Sanction:
Other Sanctions: 
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
12/09/2016
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
WTM/SM/IVD/ID1/7863/2020-21
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Equity Listed (Common & Preferred Stock)
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
ON DECEMBER 9, 2016, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ("SEBI") ISSUED A "SHOW CAUSE NOTICE" (THE "NOTICE") UNDER
SECTIONS 11, 11B AND 11(4) OF THE SEBI ACT, 1992, AND REGULATIONS 3(B), (C), (D) AND 4(1) OF THE SEBI (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND
UNFAIR PRACTICE RELATING TO SECURITIES MARKET) REGULATIONS, 2003, ADDRESSED TO ELLIOTT ADVISORS (HK) LIMITED ("EAHK"), ELLIOTT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P., ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P., THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MANSFIELD
(MAURITIUS) LIMITED, SUFFOLK (MAURITIUS) LIMITED (TOGETHER "ELLIOTT") AND ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS AB SWEDEN ("AZ SWEDEN"). THE
NOTICE WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEBI'S INVESTIGATION INTO MATTERS CONCERNING A SALE BY AZ SWEDEN OF SHARES IN ASTRAZENECA PHARMA
INDIA LIMITED ("AZ INDIA") IN A PUBLIC OFFER FOR SALE PROCESS (THE "OFS") CONDUCTED IN MAY 2013, AND PERCEIVED CONNECTIONS WITH THE
SUBSEQUENT INTENDED PRIVATIZATION AND DELISTING OF AZ INDIA THAT WAS ANNOUNCED ON MARCH 3, 2014 BUT WAS NOT EXECUTED. THE
NOTICE SET FORTH CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS, INCLUDING THAT (I) ELLIOTT AND AZ SWEDEN EMPLOYED MANIPULATIVE AND DECEPTIVE DEVICES BY
CONDUCTING FRAUDULENT NEGOTIATIONS TO INFLUENCE THE DELISTING PRICE OF AZ INDIA; AND (II) MATERIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING SUCH
NEGOTIATIONS, THE SIZE OF ELLIOTT'S OVERALL EXPOSURE TO AZ INDIA, AND ITS ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE INTENDED DELISTING PROCESS WAS
CONCEALED FROM RETAIL INVESTORS.
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:
Order
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
06/05/2020
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
DATE ORDER RECEIVED BY ELLIOTT.
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: 
SEE ITEM 13 BELOW.
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).
ON JUNE 5, 2020, ELLIOTT AND AZ SWEDEN RECEIVED A WRITTEN ORDER IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING CONDUCTED UNDER SECTIONS 11(1),
11(4) AND 11(B) OF THE SEBI ACT 1992 BY SEBI. THE ORDER RELATES TO ALLEGATIONS BY SEBI THAT ELLIOTT AND AZ SWEDEN EMPLOYED
MANIPULATIVE AND DECEPTIVE DEVICES BY CONDUCTING FRAUDULENT NEGOTIATIONS TO INFLUENCE THE DELISTING PRICE OF SHARES IN AZ INDIA.
THE DELISTING OF AZ INDIA WAS PROPOSED BY AZ SWEDEN IN EARLY 2014 BUT DID NOT TAKE PLACE. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE SEBI ORDER CAN BE
INTERPRETED AS SAYING THAT ELLIOTT AND AZ SWEDEN DID NOT COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SEBI (PROHIBITION OF FRAUDULENT AND
UNFAIR PRACTICE RELATING TO SECURITIES MARKET) REGULATIONS, 2003. ELLIOTT AND AZ SWEDEN WERE CENSURED AND DIRECTED TO REFRAIN
FROM SIMILAR ACTIONS IN THE FUTURE. NO MONETARY PENALTY WAS IMPOSED. ELLIOTT STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH THE ORDER AND THE FINDINGS,
CONSIDERS THEM TO BE WHOLLY WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATION, AND IT REMAINS ELLIOTT'S POSITION THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF
ELLIOTT WERE LAWFUL AT ALL TIMES.

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:
292232
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT CAPITAL ADVISORS,
L.P.
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
292248
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT ADVISORS (UK)
LIMITED
(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) 
AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS
2.
Principal Sanction:
Other Sanctions: 
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
12/23/2019
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
SEE ITEM 7 BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION REGARDING INITIATION DATES.
4.
Docket/Case Number:
PROCEDURE NO. 2019-03
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Derivative(s)
Other Product Types: 
EQUITY LISTED (COMMON & PREFERRED STOCK)
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
ON DECEMBER 23, 2019, ELLIOTT CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P. ("ECALP") RECEIVED, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON DECEMBER 31, 2019, ELLIOTT ADVISORS
(UK) LIMITED ("EAUK") RECEIVED, A COPY OF AN AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS (THE "AMF") INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (THE "REPORT") TO THE
SANCTIONS COMMISSION OF THE AMF IN FRANCE. (ECALP AND EAUK ARE TOGETHER REFERRED TO BELOW AS "ELLIOTT".) THE REPORT REFLECTS
NON-BINDING RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH BY THE AMF AS A RESULT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION INTO ELLIOTT'S
ACTIVITY CONCERNING A TENDER OFFER CONDUCTED BY XPO LOGISTICS, INC. AND XPO LOGISTICS FRANCE (COLLECTIVELY "XPO") FOR THE SHARES
OF NORBERT DENTRESSANGLE SA ("NDSA") IN 2015. THE RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT ARE THAT (I) ALTHOUGH ELLIOTT'S PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE OF ITS POSITION IN NDSA WAS NOT MISLEADING OR MANIPULATIVE, IT INACCURATELY DESCRIBED ITS DERIVATIVE HOLDINGS AS
"CONTRACTS FOR DIFFERENCE" RATHER THAN AS "EQUITY SWAPS"; (II) ELLIOTT DID NOT DECLARE ITS INTENTION TO NOT TENDER ITS HOLDINGS IN
NDSA INTO XPO'S TENDER OFFER IN A TIMELY MANNER; AND (III) DESPITE RESPONDING TO EACH OF THE AMF'S REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION IN A
TIMELY MANNER, AND DESPITE ELLIOTT HAVING VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO ANSWER REQUESTS IT WAS NOT COMPELLED TO ANSWER, EAUK IMPEDED
THE AMF'S INVESTIGATION BY MAKING A DELAYED PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ELLIOTT, IN THE AMF'S VIEW, SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD
WERE BEING SOUGHT BY THE AMF.
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:
Decision
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
04/04/2024
 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: $ 20,345,000.00
 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: 
THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION OF THE AMF ASSESSED A FINE OF EUR 15 MILLION (APPROXIMATELY $16,500,000) AGAINST EAUK AND EUR 5
MILLION (APPROXIMATELY $5,500,000) AGAINST ECALP. THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS REDUCED THE FINE AGAINST EAUK BY EUR 1 MILLION
(APPROXIMATELY $1,100,000) AND AGAINST ECALP BY EUR 0.5 MILLION (APPROXIMATELY $555,000).
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).
ON APRIL 22, 2020, ELLIOTT RECEIVED A WRITTEN DECISION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FROM THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION OF THE AMF
IN FRANCE RELATING TO ELLIOTT'S ACTIVITY CONCERNING A TENDER OFFER CONDUCTED BY XPO FOR THE SHARES OF NDSA IN 2015. IN THE WRITTEN
DECISION THE AMF FOUND (I) THAT ELLIOTT INACCURATELY DESCRIBED THEIR DERIVATIVE HOLDINGS AS "CONTRACTS FOR DIFFERENCE" RATHER
THAN AS "EQUITY SWAPS" IN THEIR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THEIR POSITION IN NDSA; (II) THAT ELLIOTT DID NOT DECLARE THEIR INTENTION TO NOT
TENDER THEIR HOLDINGS IN NDSA INTO XPO'S TENDER OFFER IN A TIMELY MANNER; AND (III) THAT EAUK IMPEDED THE AMF'S INVESTIGATION BY
MAKING A DELAYED PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ELLIOTT, IN THE AMF'S VIEW, SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD WERE BEING SOUGHT BY THE AMF.
ALTHOUGH THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION ACCEPTED THAT ELLIOTT'S DECLARATIONS RELATING TO XPO'S TENDER OFFER DID NOT IN FACT MISLEAD
OR CAUSE MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO MODIFY THEIR STRATEGIES CONCERNING THE TENDER OFFER, AND FOUND NO INTENT BY EAUK TO IMPEDE THE
AMF'S INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE DELAYED PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS, IT NEVERTHELESS IMPOSED A FINE OF EUR 15 MILLION AGAINST EAUK
AND A FINE OF EUR 5 MILLION AGAINST ECALP. ELLIOTT STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH THE FINDINGS AGAINST ELLIOTT IN THIS ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING, CONSIDERS THEM WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION, VIGOROUSLY OPPOSES ANY SUGGESTION OF WRONGDOING, AND APPEALED THE
MATTER TO THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS. ON MARCH 24, 2022 THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THAT ELLIOTT WAS NOT IN FACT
REQUIRED IN ITS DECLARATIONS OF INTENT TO DISTINGUISH THE TYPE OF ITS DERIVATIVE HOLDINGS AND REDUCED THE FINE AGAINST EAUK BY EUR
1 MILLION AND AGAINST ECA BY EUR 0.5 MILLION. HOWEVER, THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE AMF'S FINDINGS THAT: (I) ELLIOTT WAS
NEVERTHELESS REQUIRED TO DISTINGUISH THE TYPE OF ITS DERIVATIVE HOLDINGS IN ITS OTHER FILINGS; (II) ELLIOTT DID NOT DECLARE ITS
INTENTION TO NOT TENDER ITS HOLDINGS IN NDSA INTO XPO'S TENDER OFFER IN A TIMELY MANNER; AND (III) EAUK IMPEDED THE AMF'S
INVESTIGATION BY MAKING A DELAYED PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ELLIOTT, IN THE AMF'S VIEW, SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD WERE BEING
SOUGHT BY THE AMF. ELLIOTT DISAGREED WITH THE DECISION OF THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS AND APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE FRENCH
SUPREME COURT, THE COUR DE CASSATION. ON APRIL 4, 2024 THE COUR DE CASSATION AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS.
ELLIOTT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION OF THE COUR DE CASSATION AND ON AUGUST 2, 2024, ELLIOTT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO THE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS TO HEAR AN APPEAL. ON NOVEMBER 13, 2025, THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECLINED TO HEAR
ELLIOTT'S APPLICATION. NONE OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MATTER (INCLUDING THE PENALTY ASSESSED BY THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION
AND THE COST OF THE APPEAL) HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE BORNE BY THE ELLIOTT FUNDS, AND ELLIOTT CONTINUES TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MATTER DID
NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE FUNDS.

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:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P.
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
(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) 
HELLENIC CAPITAL MARKET COMMISSION (GREECE)
2.
Principal Sanction:
Other Sanctions: 
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
02/11/2015
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
DATE ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P. RECEIVED INQUIRY LETTER. THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
INQUIRY LETTER ON AUGUST 14, 2015.
4.
Docket/Case Number:
132/15.1.2015; 2317/19.6.2015
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Equity Listed (Common & Preferred Stock)
Other Product Types: 

7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
CERTAIN PRIVATE INVESTMENT FUND ENTITIES REFERENCED ABOVE IN PART I.A OF THIS DRP (EACH SUCH FUND, AN "ELLIOTT FUND") EACH
SEPARATELY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE HELLENIC CAPITAL MARKET COMMISSION (THE "HCMC") REGARDING SHORT-SALE ORDERS FOR A SECURITY
PLACED ON MAY 6, 2014. HCMC HAS ALLEGED THAT, IN ITS VIEW, EACH ELLIOTT FUND VIOLATED AN EU SHORT-SELLING RULE BY PLACING THE SHORT-
SALE ORDER ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SECURITY WAS APPROVED FOR TRADING, WITHOUT ADEQUATELY ENSURING THAT THE SECURITY WOULD BE
AVAILABLE FOR SETTLEMENT WHEN DUE.
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 HCMC REQUESTED THE ELLIOTT FUNDS' VIEWS ON THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS BEFORE MAKING ANY FINAL DETERMINATION. THE ELLIOTT
FUNDS EACH RESPONDED TO THE HCMC AND CONTESTED THE ALLEGATIONS. IN PARTICULAR, THE ELLIOTT FUNDS STATED THAT THEY DID IN FACT
ENSURE THAT THE RELEVANT SECURITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SETTLEMENT WHEN DUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT EU SHORT-SELLING
RULE. EACH ELLIOTT FUND DID SO BY ENTERING INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT, BEFORE EFFECTING THE SHORT SALE, TO ACQUIRE THE SECURITY TO BE
DELIVERED PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT DATE. IN FACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH AGREEMENT, THE SHARES WERE ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE
SETTLEMENT DATE AND WERE DELIVERED TO THE BUYER ON THE SETTLEMENT DATE. THESE MATTERS REMAIN PENDING BEFORE THE HCMC. ON
NOVEMBER 28, 2017, ELLIOTT'S COUNSEL RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE HCMC STATING THAT THE HCMC DECIDED TO IMPOSE A FINE OF EURO
64,500 ON THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RELATING TO THE ABOVE-REFERENCED ACTIVITY. ON FEBRUARY 21, 2018, ELLIOTT'S COUNSEL
RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL EMAIL FROM THE HCMC IMPOSING A FINE OF EURO 116,500 ON ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P. THESE
DECISIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED FINAL AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL.

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:
292248
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT ADVISORS (UK)
LIMITED
(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) 
AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS
2.
Principal Sanction:
Civil and Administrative Penalt(ies) /Fine(s)
Other Sanctions: 
3.
Date Initiated (MM/DD/YYYY): 
12/27/2012
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Docket/Case Number:
DEC-DEJI/2010.65
5.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the regulatory action (if applicable):
6.
Principal Product Type:
Equity Listed (Common & Preferred Stock)
Other Product Types: 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this regulatory action (your response must fit within the space provided):
ON DECEMBER 28, 2012, ELLIOTT ADVISORS (UK) LIMITED ("EAUK") RECEIVED A LETTER OF GRIEVANCE FROM THE FRENCH FINANCIAL MARKET
REGULATOR, THE AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS (THE "AMF"), STATING THAT EAUK MAY HAVE PURCHASED THE STOCK OF AUTOROUTES PARIS

RHIN­RHÔNE ("APRR") BASED ON MATERIAL NONPUBLIC INFORMATION RELATING TO A POTENTIAL SALE OF ELLIOTT'S APRR STAKE TO EIFFARIE, APRR'S
MAJORITY OWNER. THE AMF ALSO STATED THAT ELLIOTT'S APRR PURCHASES DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD MAY HAVE CAUSED THE APRR STOCK
PRICE TO BE ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED. ON JANUARY 31, 2013, ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ("EMC") RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
LETTER OF GRIEVANCE FROM THE AMF. THE LETTER TO EMC DID NOT ASSERT ANY NEW STATEMENTS OR SET FORTH ANY NEW FACTS.
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:
Decision
11. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY):
03/27/2019
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
THE FRENCH SUPREME COURT, THE COUR DE CASSATION AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS.
12. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered (check all appropriate items)?
 Monetary/Fine Amount: $ 22,000,000.00
 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: 
THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION OF THE AMF ASSESSED A PENALTY OF 8 MILLION EUROS AGAINST EMC (APPROXIMATELY $11 MILLION) AND 8
MILLION EUROS AGAINST EAUK.
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).
ON MAY 5, 2014, EAUK AND EMC RECEIVED A WRITTEN DECISION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FROM THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION OF THE
AMF IN FRANCE. THE WRITTEN DECISION (THE "AMF DECISION") RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS BY THE AMF THAT ELLIOTT PURCHASED STOCK OF APRR
BASED ON MATERIAL NONPUBLIC INFORMATION AND THAT ELLIOTT MANIPULATED THE STOCK OF APRR. IN THE AMF DECISION, THE SANCTIONS
COMMISSION FOUND THAT ELLIOTT USED MATERIAL NONPUBLIC INFORMATION IN THE PURCHASE OF APRR SHARES BETWEEN MAY 28, 2010 AND JUNE
11, 2010 BUT HELD THAT ELLIOTT DID NOT COMMIT MARKET MANIPULATION OR ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THE PRICE OF APRR SHARES. THE SANCTIONS
COMMISSION ASSESSED A PENALTY OF 8 MILLION EUROS AGAINST EMC AND 8 MILLION EUROS AGAINST EAUK. ELLIOTT DISAGREES WITH THE
FINDINGS AGAINST EMC AND EAUK IN THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING. IT REMAINS ELLIOTT'S POSITION THAT ITS TRADING IN APRR'S SECURITIES
WAS LAWFUL AT ALL TIMES. ELLIOTT'S PURCHASES OF APRR STOCK WERE MADE AS PART OF A LONGSTANDING TRADING STRATEGY DATING BACK TO
2005. ELLIOTT PURCHASED APRR STOCK ON OVER 300 TRADING DAYS BETWEEN DECEMBER 2005 AND JUNE 2010. ELLIOTT HAS LONGSTANDING
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO PREVENT THE MISUSE OF MATERIAL NONPUBLIC INFORMATION. CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PROCEDURES,
ELLIOTT HAD A CHINESE WALL IN PLACE WITH RESPECT TO APRR DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, AND NO MATERIAL NONPUBLIC INFORMATION
WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE PERSONNEL WHO DIRECTED THE PURCHASES OF APRR STOCK. DESPITE AN INVESTIGATION WHICH INCLUDED EXTENSIVE
REVIEWS OF EMAILS, AUDIOTAPED TRADING LINES AND INTERVIEWS WITH WITNESSES, THE AMF OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT ELLIOTT'S CHINESE
WALL WAS BREACHED, BUT INSTEAD SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTED THEIR INFERENCE THAT THE CHINESE WALL WAS
BREACHED. EMC AND EAUK APPEALED THE AMF DECISION TO THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS. ON JANUARY 14, 2016, THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE AMF DECISION. ELLIOTT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION OF THE PARIS COURT OF APPEALS AND EMC AND EAUK APPEALED THE
DECISION TO THE FRENCH SUPREME COURT, THE COUR DE CASSATION. ON MARCH 27, 2019, THE COUR DE CASSATION AFFIRMED THE AMF DECISION.
ELLIOTT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION OF THE COUR DE CASSATION. ON FEBRUARY 6, 2020, THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECLINED
TO HEAR THE APPLICATION OF EMC AND EAUK. EMC AND EAUK SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REGARDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF EU LAW, WITH A VIEW TO APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE FRENCH COURTS.
ON JUNE 21, 2021, ELLIOTT WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION HAD REJECTED THE APPLICATION. NONE OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS MATTER (INCLUDING THE PENALTY ASSESSED BY THE SANCTIONS COMMISSION AND THE COST OF THE APPEAL) HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE
BORNE BY THE ELLIOTT FUNDS, AND ELLIOTT CONTINUES TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MATTER DID NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE FUNDS.

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:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P.
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P.
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
292232
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
ELLIOTT CAPITAL ADVISORS,
L.P.
(For individuals, Last, First,
Middle)
CRD
Number:
This advisory affiliate is 
a Firm
an Individual
Registered:
Yes
No
Name:
THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP
(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.) 
XPO LOGISTICS, INC. AND XPO LOGISTICS FRANCE
2.
Principal Relief Sought:
Injunction
Other Relief Sought: 
MONEY DAMAGES
3.
Filing Date of Court Action (MM/DD/YYYY):
07/08/2015
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
4.
Principal Product Type:
Equity Listed (Common & Preferred Stock)
Other Product Types: 
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): 
PARIS COMMERCIAL COURT; PARIS, FRANCE; 2015000402
6.
Advisory Affiliate Employing Firm when activity occurred which led to the civil judicial action (if applicable): 
7.
Describe the allegations related to this civil action (your response must fit within the space provided): 
THIS DRP DESCRIBES CIVIL LITIGATION RELATED TO ELLIOTT'S (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) DECISION NOT TO TENDER ITS SHARES OF NORBERT
DENTRESSANGLE SA ("ND") IN A TENDER OFFER CONDUCTED BY XPO LOGISTICS, INC. AND XPO LOGISTICS FRANCE (COLLECTIVELY, "XPO"). XPO HAS
ALLEGED THAT ELLIOTT CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P. AND CERTAIN FUNDS MANAGED BY ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (TOGETHER WITH THEIR
AFFILIATES, "ELLIOTT") ARE IN VIOLATION OF FRENCH LAW SURROUNDING TENDER OFFERS AND THAT XPO WOULD SUFFER SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE AS A
RESULT. ELLIOTT HELD APPROXIMATELY 7.6% OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF ND. ELLIOTT HAS ALLEGED THAT XPO LIKELY HAD TAKEN OR HAD
IMMINENT PLANS TO TAKE ACTION THAT WAS MANIFESTLY CONTRARY TO THE CORPORATE INTERESTS OF ND AND THE MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS OF
ND IN ORDER TO PURSUE THE PROPOSED MERGER AND THEREBY IGNORE THAT XPO DOES NOT OWN 100% OF ND'S SHARES.
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): 
10. If pending, date notice/process was served (MM/DD/YYYY):
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
If Final or On Appeal, complete all items below. For Pending Actions, complete Item 14 only.
11. How was matter resolved:
Settled
12. Resolution Date (MM/DD/YYYY): 
11/28/2019
 Exact
 Explanation
If not exact, provide explanation:
13. Resolution Detail:
A.  Were any of the following Sanctions Ordered or Relief Granted(check appropriate items)?
Monetary/Fine Amount: $
Revocation/Expulsion/Denial
Disgorgement/Restitution
Censure
Cease and Desist/Injunction
Bar
Suspension

B.
Other Sanctions:
SETTLED.
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:
SETTLED.
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 JULY 8, 2015, THE PARIS COMMERCIAL COURT ISSUED AN EX PARTE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO A CIVIL COMPLAINT FILED BY XPO THAT, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, TEMPORARILY BARRED ELLIOTT FROM TRANSFERRING ITS EQUITY INTEREST IN ND TO ANY THIRD PARTY OTHER THAN XPO, UNTIL THE
COURT ISSUED A FURTHER ORDER AT OR FOLLOWING A HEARING ON JULY 23, 2015. ON JULY 16, 2015, THE PARIS COMMERCIAL COURT ISSUED AN EX
PARTE ORDER AT THE REQUEST OF ELLIOTT THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TEMPORARILY BARRED XPO FROM CARRYING OUT ANY OF ITS
CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTIONS WITH ND, INCLUDING PURSUING THE PROPOSED MERGER WITH ND, UNTIL THE COURT ISSUED A FURTHER ORDER AT
OR FOLLOWING THE JULY 23 HEARING. ON JULY 29, 2015, THE PARIS COMMERCIAL COURT LIFTED THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN BOTH EX PARTE
ORDERS, AND ADDED ND TO AND REMOVED THE LIVERPOOL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FROM THE PROCEEDINGS, AND DENIED CERTAIN OTHER RELIEF
REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES. ON MAY 2, 2016, ELLIOTT FILED AN ACTION "UT SINGULI," IN THE NATURE OF A DERIVATIVE ACTION, ON BEHALF OF ND
(RENAMED "XPO LOGISTICS EUROPE") AGAINST CERTAIN PRESENT AND FORMER EXECUTIVES AND/OR DIRECTORS OF ND. ON NOVEMBER 28, 2019,
ELLIOTT SETTLED THESE PROCEEDINGS AND OBTAINED A FULL AND COMPLETE RELEASE. THE MATTER IS NOW CONCLUDED.