Item 4 is hereby amended to add the following: On August 28, 2026, the Court issued a memorandum opinion (the "Decision") in connection with the litigation initiated by the Complaint (the "Action"). The Decision addressed ATG Fund's claims that the Issuer's Board breached the Bylaws and breached its fiduciary duty in rejecting ATG Fund's Nomination Notice. In the Decision, the Court held that the Board "lacked contractual grounds to reject the Nomination Notice" and breached the Bylaws when it rejected ATG Fund's Nomination Notice. The Court also found that "the Board's reject[ion] [of] the Nomination Notice was inequitable and constituted a breach of the directors' fiduciary duties." The Decision expressly stated that "ATG [Fund]'s Nomination Notice is valid. ATG [Fund]'s nominees may stand for election at Empery's annual meeting." During the Action, the Defendants asserted that ATG Fund was required to disclose (a) a short position it held in certain Bitcoin ETFs (the "Bitcoin Short"), and (b) information concerning another stockholder, Tice Brown, as an alleged "participant" in ATG Fund's proxy campaign, in the Nomination Notice. The Defendants also asserted that ATG Fund was required to disclose the Bitcoin Short on its Schedule 13D filed on January 26, 2026, because ATG Fund stated that it might "engag[e] in short selling of or any hedging or similar transaction with respect to the Shares." The Court found that disclosure of the Bitcoin Short is not required under the Bylaws and that "ATG [Fund] could not fairly be expected to guess that the Board would interpret the Bylaws to require the disclosure of a Bitcoin short position." The Court held that the Defendants actions "reflect[] a misunderstanding of not only basic contract interpretation, but also the purpose advance notice bylaws serve under Delaware law." We believe that the Defendant's assertion that ATG Fund was required to disclose the Bitcoin Short on its Schedule 13D filing is also baseless, and that the January 26 Schedule 13D is accurate as the reference to "Shares," as defined therein, is to the Issuer's common stock and does not refer to hedging transactions in Bitcoin ETFs. As the Decision notes, ATG Fund previously held the Bitcoin Short. Given the Issuer's operational shift, ATG Fund has since closed out the Bitcoin Shorts and, as of the date hereof, no longer holds any short positions in Bitcoin ETFs. For the avoidance of doubt, other than its previously disclosed brief short sale of February 2026 call options, ATG Fund has never held short positions in any securities of the Issuer. In its post-trial brief, the Issuer asserted new allegations that Mr. Brown was a member of a "group" for the purposes of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and/or had agreements, arrangement or understandings with respect to the Issuer with ATG Fund. In the Decision, the Court found that "Mr. Brown is not a participant in ATG [Fund's] solicitation" and that ATG Fund was not required to include information concerning Mr. Brown in the Nomination Notice. The Court did not reach a decision regarding the Issuer's other claims regarding Mr. Brown raised in the post-trial brief. ATG Fund vigorously disputes these allegations. The foregoing description of the Decision does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the Decision, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference.