Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees
of Rydex Series Funds
In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of Rydex Series Funds (the “Trust”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), we considered the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting, including controls over safeguarding securities, as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-CEN, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
The management of the Trust is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of controls. A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of a company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
A deficiency in internal control over financial reporting exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.
Our consideration of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not necessarily disclose all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the PCAOB. However, we noted no deficiencies in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting and its operation, including controls over safeguarding securities, that we consider to be a material weakness as defined above as of December 31, 2022.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and the Board of Trustees of Rydex Series Funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
| /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
Tysons, Virginia
February 24, 2023
Legal Proceedings
Tribune Company
Rydex Series Funds has been named as a defendant and a putative member of the proposed defendant class of shareholders in the case entitled Kirschner v. FitzSimons, No. 12-2652 (S.D.N.Y.) (formerly Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tribune Co. v. FitzSimons, Adv. Pro. No. 10-54010 (Bankr. D. Del.)) (the “FitzSimons action”), as a result of ownership by certain series of the Rydex Series Funds of shares in the Tribune Company (“Tribune”) in 2007, when Tribune effected a leveraged buyout transaction (“LBO”) by which Tribune converted to a privately-held company. In his complaint, the plaintiff has alleged that, in connection with the LBO, Tribune insiders and shareholders were overpaid for their Tribune stock using financing that the insiders knew would, and ultimately did, leave Tribune insolvent. The plaintiff has asserted claims against certain insiders, major shareholders, professional advisers, and others involved in the LBO. The plaintiff is also attempting to obtain from former Tribune shareholders, including the Rydex Series Funds, the proceeds they received in connection with the LBO.
In June 2011, a group of Tribune creditors filed multiple actions against former Tribune shareholders involving state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims arising out of the 2007 LBO (the “SLCFC actions”). Rydex Series Funds has been named as a defendant in one or more of these suits. In those actions, the creditors seek to recover from Tribune’s former shareholders the proceeds received in connection with the 2007 LBO.
The FitzSimons action and the SLCFC actions have been consolidated with the majority of the other Tribune LBO-related lawsuits in a multidistrict litigation proceeding captioned In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., No. 11-md-2296 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “MDL Proceeding”).
On September 23, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants’ omnibus motion to dismiss the SLCFC actions, on the basis that the creditors lacked standing. On September 30, 2013, the creditors filed a notice of appeal of the September 23 order. On October 28, 2013, the defendants filed a joint notice of cross-appeal of that same order.
On March 29, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion on the appeal of the SLCFC actions. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of those lawsuits, but on different grounds than the district court. The appeals court held that while the plaintiffs have standing under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, their claims were preempted by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code—the statutory safe harbor for settlement payments.
On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs in the SLCFC actions filed a petition seeking rehearing en banc before the appeals court. On July 22, 2016, the appeals court denied the petition. On September 9, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Second Circuit’s decision that the safe harbor of Section 546(e) applied to their claims. The shareholder defendants, including the Funds, filed a joint brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari on October 24, 2016. On April 3, 2018, Justice Kennedy and Justice Thomas issued a “Statement” related to the petition for certiorari suggesting that the Second Circuit and/or District Court may want to take steps to reexamine the application of the Section 546(e) safe harbor to the previously dismissed state law constructive fraudulent transfer claims based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. On April 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed in the Second Circuit a motion for that court to recall its mandate, vacate its prior decision, and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Merit Management. On April 20, 2018, the shareholder defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to recall the mandate. On May 15, 2018, the Second Circuit issued an order recalling the mandate “in anticipation of further panel review.” On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit issued an amended opinion that again affirmed the district court’s ruling on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc on January 2, 2020. The Second Circuit denied the petition on February 6, 2020. On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed a new petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. In that petition, plaintiffs stated that “[t]o make it more likely that there will be a quorum for this petition,” they have “abandon[ed] the case and let the judgment below stand” with respect to certain defendants. That list did not include the Rydex Series Funds. Defendants filed an opposition to the certiorari petition on August 26, 2020, and plaintiffs filed a reply in support of the petition for certiorari on September 8, 2020. On March 12, 2021, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief recommending that certiorari be denied. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in response to the Solicitor General’s amicus brief on March 31, 2021, and Defendants filed a supplemental brief on April 1, 2021. The Court denied the petition for certiorari on April 19, 2021.
On May 23, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the FitzSimons action, including a global motion to dismiss Count I, which is the claim brought against former Tribune shareholders for intentional fraudulent conveyance under U.S. federal law. On January 6, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the shareholder defendants’ motion to dismiss the intentional fraudulent conveyance claim in the FitzSimons action. In dismissing the intentional fraudulent conveyance claim, the Court denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint. The plaintiff requested that the Court direct entry of a final judgment in order to make the order immediately appealable. On February 23, 2017, the Court issued an order stating that it intended to permit an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal order, but would wait to do so until it has resolved outstanding motions to dismiss filed by other defendants.
On July 18, 2017, the plaintiff submitted a letter to the District Court seeking leave to amend its complaint to add a constructive fraudulent transfer claim. The shareholder defendants opposed that request. On August 24, 2017, the Court denied the plaintiff’s request without prejudice to renewal of the request in the event of an intervening change in the law. On March 8, 2018, the plaintiff renewed his request for leave to file a motion to amend the complaint to assert a constructive fraudulent transfer claim based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. The shareholder defendants opposed that request. On June 18, 2018 the District Court ordered that the request would be stayed pending further action by the Second Circuit in the SLCFC actions.
On December 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a letter with the District Court requesting that the stay be dissolved in order to permit briefing on the motion to amend the complaint and indicating plaintiff’s intention to file another motion to amend the complaint to reinstate claims for intentional fraudulent transfer. The shareholder defendants opposed that request. On January 14, 2019, the court held a case management conference, during which the court stated that it would not lift the stay prior to further action from the Second Circuit in the SLCFC actions. The court further stated that it would allow the plaintiff to file a motion to amend to try to reinstate its intentional fraudulent transfer claim. On January 23, 2019, the court ordered the parties still facing pending claims to participate in a mediation, to commence on January 28, 2019. The mediation did not result in a settlement of the claims against the shareholder defendants.
On April 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Fifth Amended Complaint to assert a federal constructive fraudulent transfer claim against certain shareholder defendants. On April 10, 2019, the shareholder defendants filed a brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend. On April 12, 2019, the plaintiff filed a reply brief. On April 23, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend. On June 13, 2019, the court entered judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). On July 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to the dismissal of his claims and the District Court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an appellate brief on January 7, 2020. The shareholder defendants’ brief was filed on April 27, 2020. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on May 18, 2020. The Court held oral argument on August 24, 2020. On August 20, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders: (1) dismissing the intentional fraudulent conveyance claims against the shareholder-defendants; and (2) denying the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to add a constructive fraudulent conveyance claim against the shareholder-defendants. Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing en banc on September 3, 2021. On October 7, 2021, the Second Circuit denied the petition. On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition was denied on February 22, 2022.
As a result of the dismissals above, there are no longer claims pending against Rydex Series Funds related to the Tribune LBO.
None of these lawsuits alleges any wrongdoing on the part of Rydex Series Funds. The following series of Rydex Series Funds held shares of Tribune and tendered these shares as part of Tribune’s LBO: Nova Fund, S&P 500® Pure Value Fund, Multi-Cap Core Equity Fund, S&P 500® Fund, Multi-Hedge Strategies Fund and Hedged Equity Fund (the “Funds”). The value of the proceeds received by the foregoing Funds was $28,220, $109,242, $9,860, $3,400, $1,181,160, and $10,880, respectively.