Beneficient

There have been no material changes in the risk factors previously disclosed in response to Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2023 filed with the SEC on July 13, 2023, except as set forth below.

We have a substantial amount of goodwill and intangible assets, and we have been, and may in the future be. required to write down the value of our intangible assets and goodwill due to impairment, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A significant portion of our total assets are comprised of goodwill and intangible assets that arose from a series of transactions with GWG and relate principally to our Ben Liquidity business. We perform goodwill and intangible asset impairment annually, during the fourth quarter of each year, or when events occur, or circumstances change that would more likely than not indicate impairment has occurred, including a significant substantial decline in the prevailing price of our Class A common stock. Subsequent to our public listing on June 8, 2023, and through the date of this report, the Company has experienced a significant sustained decline in the price of its Class A common stock and its related market capitalization. We believe that these factors indicated that the fair value of our reporting units had more likely than not fallen below their carrying values as of June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2023. As such, management performed an interim impairment test of goodwill as of June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2023, which resulted in $1.1 billion, $306.7 million and $883.2 million, respectively, of impairment at the Ben Liquidity and Ben Custody reporting units. Because a number of factors may influence determinations of fair value of goodwill and our intangible assets, including the price of our Class A common stock, which has continued to decline since our public listing, there can be no assurance that our future evaluations of goodwill and intangible assets will not result in findings of significant impairment and related write-downs, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In assessing impairment, the Company computed the fair value of each reporting unit by computing the overall enterprise value of the Company by valuing its various equity instruments, primarily based on the Class A common stock price per share. The overall enterprise value was allocated to each reporting unit using the discounted cash flow method to estimate the relative value of each reporting unit based on their future cash flows using a multi-year forecast, and a terminal value calculated using a long-term growth rate that was informed based on our industry, analyst reports of a public company peer set, current and expected future economic conditions and management expectations. The discount rate used to discount these future cash flows was determined using a capital asset pricing model based on the market value of equity of a public company peer set, adjusted for risk characteristics and expectations specific to the reporting unit, combined with an assessment of the cost of debt. The discount rates used for each reporting unit in the June 30, 2023 impairment analysis ranged from 24.8% to 25.6%, and the Company applied a terminal year long-term growth rate of 3.0% for each reporting unit. Subsequent to the impairment, there was no excess of reporting unit fair value over carrying value for Ben Liquidity or Ben Custody. The discount rates used for each reporting unit in the September 30, 2023 impairment analysis ranged from 25.3% to 26.2%, and the Company applied a terminal year long-term growth rate of 3.0% for each reporting unit. Subsequent to the impairment, there was no excess of reporting unit fair value over carrying value for Ben Liquidity or Ben Custody. The discount rates used for each reporting unit in the December 31, 2023 impairment analysis ranged from 26.3% to 27.2%, and the Company applied a terminal year long-term growth rate of 3.0% for each reporting unit. Subsequent to the impairment, there was no excess of reporting unit fair value over carrying value for Ben Liquidity or Ben Custody as of December 31, 2023. One reporting unit, Ben Markets, had a negative carrying amount of net assets as of June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2023, and goodwill of approximately $9.9 million.

Future valuations of the enterprise value may use different valuation methodologies than the methodology employed for June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023, or December 31, 2023, including the income approach, which would heavily incorporate management’s estimate of discounted cash flow. With all valuations, our assumptions reflect management’s best estimates of future performance. Further valuations involving estimates, specifically to the extent they may utilize management’s estimates of discounted cash flow, could assume that we capture a significant market share of liquidity transactions leading to a substantial rate of growth of new service offerings and products, revenues and assets. These estimations are uncertain to occur, and to the extent we fall short of achieving our expected growth in revenues and assets, material impairments of our goodwill may occur in the near term. Additionally, any litigation relating to our transactions with GWG could have a material adverse on our ability to execute on our business plan, which could have an effect on the value of our goodwill and intangibles. While management can and has implemented its business plans, a failure to further execute our business plans or adverse changes in management’s forecasts, to the extent used in future valuations, could result in a decline in our estimated fair value and could result in an impairment of our goodwill or intangible assets. A significant sustained decrease in the Company’s Common Stock has in the past been an indicator, and in the future may indicate, that impairment is present and may require a quantitative impairment assessment of the Company’s assets, including goodwill and intangible assets. Any such future impairment charges for goodwill may reduce the overall assets and may result in a change in the perceived value of the Company and ultimately may be reflected as a reduction in the market price of our securities. Any impairment charge would adversely impact the income (loss) allocable to Ben’s equity holders. Additionally, an impairment charge may also adversely influence our ability to raise capital in the future. Further, impairment of our goodwill and intangible assets may result in us recording a negative amount of stockholder’s equity. To the extent this occurs, the ability of the Company to “downlist” to the Nasdaq Capital Market or otherwise change the tier of Nasdaq on which it lists will be eliminated, which may have the effect of making it more difficult to continue to list shares of its Class A common stock on Nasdaq.

Allocations of write downs in the value of our intangible assets and goodwill due to impairment will result in a decrease in the capital account balance of the BCH Class A Units indirectly held by the Company.

Pursuant to the terms of the BCH LPA, upward adjustments to the carrying value of any assets of BCH and its subsidiaries are first, allocated to the holders of the BCH FLP-1 Unit Accounts (50.5%) and the Subclass 2 FLP Unit Accounts of BCH (“BCH FLP-2 Unit Accounts” and together with the BCH FLP-1 Unit Accounts and the BCH FLP-2 Unit Accounts, the “BCH FLP Unit Accounts”) (49.5%) up to an amount equal to 15% of the aggregate capital account balances of all outstanding BCH Class A Units and BCH Class S Ordinary Units and the BCH Class S Preferred Units (together, the “BCH Class S Units”), inclusive of the amount of such upward adjustment, less any prior allocations of upward adjustments; second, allocated among the holders of the BCH Class A Units and the BCH Class S Units in an amount necessary to cause the capital account balances of each series of the BCH Class A Units to be equal to the capital account balances of each series of the BCH Class S Units; and third, pro rata among all outstanding units of BCH, except the BCH Preferred A.0, BCH Preferred A.1 and the BCH FLP Unit Accounts.

However, all losses attributable to downward adjustments to the carrying value of any assets of BCH and its subsidiaries, such as when equity securities of BCH are issued at a lower price than the prior issuance, are allocated pro rata among all holders of BCH Units other than the BCH Preferred A.0, BCH Preferred A.1 and the BCH FLP Unit Accounts. As a result of these allocations, the capital account balance of the BCH Class A Units indirectly held by the Company may decrease due to downward adjustments to the carrying value, which may reduce the amount, if any, the Company would receive upon a liquidation of BCH.

Usage of our Class A common stock or securities convertible into Class A common stock as consideration for investments in alternative asset funds may create significant volatility in our investment income and the price of our Class A common stock.

Since becoming a public company, we have issued shares of our Class A common stock and various series of our convertible preferred stock as consideration in our liquidity financing transactions. To the extent the Customer ExAlt Trusts utilize our Class A common stock or securities convertible into Class A common stock as consideration for investments in alternative asset funds, our investment income and the price of Class A common stock may become more volatile. In the event the value of our securities becomes a larger portion of the total assets of the alternative asset funds with which we transact, distributions from such funds may be affected by changes in value of our Class A common stock. As a result, while an increase in the price of our Class A common stock may result in additional distributions and investment income to us as a result of an increase in the aggregate value of the assets held by alternative asset funds with which we transact, a decline in our Class A common stock price could result in significant decreases in the aggregate value of the assets held by such alternative asset funds with which we transact, resulting in fewer distributions to us and/or a decrease in investment income, which could even further depress the trading price of our Class A common stock.

We have been notified by Nasdaq of our failure to comply with certain continued listing requirements and, if we are unable to regain compliance with all applicable continued listing requirements and standards of Nasdaq, our Class A common stock could be delisted from Nasdaq.

Our Class A common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market. To maintain our listing, we are required to satisfy continued listing requirements. There can be no assurance we will continue satisfying such continued listing requirements, which include that the closing bid price of our common stock be at least $1.00 per share, that we have at least 400 round lot holders and at least 750,000 publicly held shares, that the market value of our publicly held securities be at least $5 million, and that we meet one of these standards: stockholders’ equity of at least $10 million; market value of listed securities of at least $50 million; or total assets and total revenues of at least $50 million each in the latest fiscal year or in two of the last fiscal years.

On November 28, 2023, we received a letter from the Listing Qualifications Department of Nasdaq (the “Nasdaq Staff”) notifying the Company that, for the previous 30 consecutive business days, the closing bid price for the Company’s Class A common stock had been below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing on The Nasdaq Global Market under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) (the “Bid Price Requirement”). The letter has no effect at this time on the Class A common stock, which continues to trade on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “BENF”.

In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until May 28, 2024, to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement. If, at any time before May 28, 2024, the bid price for the Class A common stock closes at $1.00 or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, the Nasdaq Staff will provide written notification to the Company that it has regained compliance with the Bid Price Requirement (unless the Nasdaq Staff exercises its discretion to extend the 10-day period).

If the Company is not in compliance with the Bid Price Requirement by May 28, 2024, the Company may qualify for a second 180 calendar day period to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement. To qualify for an additional compliance period, the Company would need to transfer the listing of the Class A common stock to the Nasdaq Capital Market and meet the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for the Nasdaq Capital Market, except for the Bid Price Requirement. If the Company does not qualify for or fails to regain compliance during the second compliance period, then the Nasdaq Staff will provide written notification to the Company that its Class A common stock will be subject to delisting. At that time, the Company may appeal the Nasdaq Staff’s delisting determination to the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel. However, there can be no assurance that, if the Company receives a delisting notice and appeals the delisting determination, that such an appeal would be successful.

The Company intends to monitor the closing bid price of its Class A common stock. The Company is evaluating available options, including seeking to effect a reverse stock split, to resolve the noncompliance matters described herein and intends to take appropriate steps to maintain its listing on Nasdaq. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement. Furthermore, as of the date of this report, the Company is currently in compliance with Nasdaq’s publicly held shares requirement. However, in the event that the number of our publicly held shares falls below 750,000, our Class A common stock would be subject to delisting.

If we are delisted from Nasdaq, our securities may be eligible for trading on an over-the-counter market. If we are not able to obtain a listing on another stock exchange or quotation service for our securities, it may be extremely difficult or impossible for stockholders to sell their shares. If we are delisted from Nasdaq, but obtain a substitute listing for our securities, it will likely be on a market with less liquidity, and therefore experience potentially more price volatility than experienced on Nasdaq. Stockholders may not be able to sell their securities on any such substitute market in the quantities, at the times, or at the prices that could potentially be available on a more liquid trading market. As a result of these factors, if our securities are delisted from Nasdaq, the value and liquidity of our securities would likely be significantly adversely affected. A delisting of our securities from Nasdaq could also adversely affect our ability to obtain financing for our operations and/or result in a loss of confidence by investors, employees and/or business partners.

In the event of a delisting, we can provide no assurance that any action taken by us to restore compliance with listing requirements would allow our securities to become listed again, stabilize the market price or improve the liquidity of our securities, prevent our securities from dropping below the Nasdaq minimum bid price requirement or prevent future non-compliance with the listing requirements of Nasdaq. There can be no assurance that we will maintain the compliance of our securities with the Nasdaq listing requirements.

We engage in related party transactions, which may result in conflicts of interest involving our senior management.

We have engaged in the past, and may continue to engage, in a substantial number of related party transactions, including transactions with our Chief Executive Officer and various entities in which our Chief Executive Officer has a financial interest. Related party transactions may present conflicts of interest, could result in disadvantages to our Company and may impair investor confidence, which could materially and adversely affect us. Related party transactions could also cause us to become materially dependent on related parties in the ongoing conduct of our business, and related parties may be motivated by personal interests to pursue courses of action that are not necessarily in the best interests of our Company and our stockholders. Further, the appearance of conflicts of interest created by related party transactions could impair the confidence of our investors. In the case of transactions with affiliates, there may be an absence of arms’ length negotiations with respect to the terms, conditions and consideration with respect to goods and services provided to or by us. Our affiliates may economically benefit from our arrangements with related parties. If we engage in related party transactions on unfavorable terms, our operating results will be negatively impacted.

Brad K. Heppner, our founder and CEO, may have financial interests that conflict with the interests of Beneficient and its stockholders.

Our CEO may face conflicts of interest as a result of (i) his equity interests in the Company and its subsidiaries and (ii) certain related party transactions between the Company and entities in which Mr. Heppner has a financial interest, including an entity that has outstanding loans to the Company, certain of each of which are structurally senior to the interests of the holders of our shares of Class A common stock. As of December 31, 2023, through BHI, an entity directly owned by The Highland Business Holdings Trust, of which Mr. Heppner is the trustee and his family are the beneficiaries, Mr. Heppner beneficially owned approximately 92.6% of the Company’s Class B common stock and held 39.5% of the total voting power of the Class A and Class B common stock. The Class B common stock is entitled to 10 votes per share on all matters on which stockholders are generally entitled to vote. Pursuant to our articles of incorporation, if the Class B Threshold is met, the (i) holders of shares of Class B common stock, voting as a separate class, are entitled to elect that number of directors that constitutes 51% (rounded up to the nearest whole number) of the total number of authorized directors and (ii) holders of shares of Common Stock, voting as a single class, are entitled to elect all remaining directors that are not otherwise entitled to be elected by a series of preferred stock, but in no event shall they not be entitled to elect at least one director. Accordingly, so long as the Class B Threshold is met, holders of shares of Class A common stock only have the ability, voting together with the holders of the Class B common stock as a single class (with each holder of the Class B common stock having 10 votes per share of the Class B common stock), to vote on the election of a minority of the Board. If, on the applicable record date, the Class B Threshold is not met, then holders of Common Stock will vote together as a single class with respect to the election of all directors, with each holder of the Class B common stock having 10 votes per share of Class B common stock. This concentration of voting power may present a conflict of interest by delaying, deterring or preventing acts that would be favored by our other stockholders.

Furthermore, through BHI, Mr. Heppner is an indirect holder of equity interests in our subsidiary, BCH, and, as of December 31, 2023, held 60.2% of the securities of BCH. Such holdings include BCH Preferred A.0, BCH Preferred A.1, BCH Class S Ordinary Units, BCH Class S Preferred Units, BCH FLP-1 Unit Accounts and BCH FLP-3 Unit Accounts. Additionally, Hicks Holdings, an entity associated with Thomas O. Hicks, one of Ben’s current directors, is one of the owners and serves as the manager of a limited liability company (the “SPV”) in which BHI also has an ownership interest. The SPV holds BCH Preferred A.0 and BCH Preferred A.1 among its investment holdings.

BHI is entitled to various payments and allocations as a result of its ownership of BCH securities. As a holder of the BCH Preferred A.0, BHI is entitled to receive quarterly guaranteed cash payments equal to 1.50% per fiscal quarter (or 6.0% per annum) of its BCH Preferred A.0 capital account balance on an annual basis, subject to the terms of an agreement to defer delivery of such payments until November 15, 2024.

Additionally, as a holder of the BCH Preferred A.1, BHI is entitled to (i) a quarterly preferred return equal to the hypothetical capital account balance of such BCH Preferred A.1 multiplied by the most recent 90-Day Average Secured Overnight Financing Rate as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York prior to each fiscal quarter plus 0.5% (2.0% per annum) and allocable by a corresponding increase to the BCH Preferred A.1 capital account, subject to an agreement to waive and defer the accrual of such payments until December 31, 2024, (ii) tax distributions for any period in which there is an allocation of income related to the quarterly preferred return and (iii) allocations from sale proceeds of BCH in an amount up to its hypothetical BCH Preferred A.1 capital account.

Furthermore, as a holder of BCH Class S Ordinary Units, following certain income allocations to the BCH Class S Ordinary Units, the capital account balance associated with such BCH Class S Ordinary Units shall be reduced to zero and, in exchange, BHI is entitled to receive an equal number of BCH Class S Ordinary Units and BCH Class S Preferred Units equal to the amount of the reduction in the capital account divided by the closing price of the Class A common stock on the date of such exchange. Such provisions result in BHI, as a holder of the BCH Class S Ordinary Units, receiving additional limited partner interests in BCH as a result of the allocation of income of BCH while retaining the BCH Class S Ordinary Units.

Holders of the BCH Class S Preferred Units are entitled to receive (i) a quarterly preferred return equal to the hypothetical capital account balance of such BCH Class S Preferred Units multiplied by the base rate and allocable by a corresponding increase to the BCH Class S Preferred Unit capital account, subject to an agreement to waive and defer the accrual of such payments until December 31, 2024 and (ii) allocations of sale proceeds of BCH in an amount up to their hypothetical BCH Class S Preferred Unit capital account, thereby increasing such holder’s BCH Class S Preferred Unit capital account and resulting distributions.

As a holder of the BCH FLP-1 Unit Accounts, BHI is also entitled to receive (i) quarterly issuances of an equal amount of BCH Class S Ordinary Units and BCH Class S Preferred Units that in aggregate is equal to the income allocated to BCH FLP-1 Unit Accounts pursuant to the BCH LPA, which is 50.5% of (1) 15% of profits from financing activities of BCH and (2) Excess EBITDA Margin, which generally relates to the fee-generating businesses of Ben, (ii) upon its allocation of income of BCH in accordance with the BCH LPA, additional BCH Class S Ordinary Units and BCH Class S Preferred Units, (iii) an allocation of a portion of any upward carrying value adjustment as calculated pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 704(b) and (iv) annual tax distributions. Finally, as the holder of BCH FLP-3 Unit Accounts, BHI is entitled to receive quarterly tax and other distributions equal to 100% of the amount of the profit allocated to BHI’s BCH FLP-3 Unit Accounts capital balance. BCH FLP-3 Unit Accounts are allocated profits from financing activities of Ben equal to the lesser of 5% of quarterly net financing revenues and 10% of the average annualized stated interest (to the extent constituting net financing revenues) of the quarterly average of new ExAlt Loans issued during the previous 12 months.

As of December 31, 2023, neither BHI nor Mr. Heppner held an interest in BMP, however, in the event that an employee forfeits their interest in BMP, BHI would hold such interest until they are reissued to a participant. As a result, BHI may occasionally hold the forfeited interests of a former employee in BMP. As the holder of BCH FLP-2 Unit Accounts, BMP is entitled to receive (i) quarterly issuances of an equal amount of BCH Class S Ordinary Units and BCH Class S Preferred Units that in aggregate is equal to the income allocated to BCH FLP-2 Unit Accounts pursuant to the BCH LPA, which is 49.5% of (1) 15% of profits from financing activities of BCH and (2) Excess EBITDA Margin (as defined herein), which generally relates to the fee-generating businesses of Ben, (ii) annual tax distributions, (iii) upon its allocation of income of BCH in accordance with the BCH LPA, additional BCH Class S Ordinary Units and BCH Class S Preferred Units and (iv) an allocation of a portion of any upward carrying value adjustment as calculated pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 704(b).

Because the Company has a holding company structure, any equity securities the Company has issued or will issue, including our Class A common stock, are and will be structurally subordinated to interests in BCH, including those of creditors of and holders of certain equity interests in BCH. Such creditors include HCLP, which holds approximately $102.3 million in secured debt of BCH as of December 31, 2023, and the holders of such equity interests include BHI which holds preferred equity interests in BCH ranking senior to the equity interests the Company holds in BCH. Therefore, in any bankruptcy, liquidation or similar proceeding, all claims of creditors (including HCLP) of BCH will have priority over the Company’s equity interests in BCH (and therefore the claims of the Class A common stock and any preferred stock the Company issues) with respect to the assets of BCH. In addition, the holders of the preferred equity interests in BCH, including BHI as described above, currently have, and may in the future have, priority over the Company’s equity interests in BCH. These priority claims and interests may present a conflict of interest with respect to the interests of the Company and our stockholders with respect to the assets of BCH and its subsidiaries.

Additionally, we have entered into certain related party transactions with entities in which Mr. Heppner has a financial interest, including the HCLP Loan Agreement. As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $102.3 million of debt (including unamortized premium thereon), which is derived from BCH’s secured loans with HCLP, an indirect subsidiary of Highland Consolidated, LP. The majority of HCLP is indirectly owned by The Highland Investment Holdings Trust, of which Mr. Heppner and his family are the beneficiaries. Mr. Heppner is a trustee but does not possess any discretionary authority with respect to the management, distribution or administration of the trust’s current assets (including HCLP). In addition to our payments on the principal balance of the HCLP Loan Agreement, pursuant to the terms of the HCLP Loan Agreement, we are required to make certain payments to HCLP for interest and fees. For the nine months ended December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, we made payments to HCLP, primarily in the form of principal and interest payments, of nil and $6.5 million, respectively. We have also paid in the past, and may be required in the future to pay, extension fees to extend the maturity dates of the HCLP Loan Agreement.

The HCLP Loan Agreement is collateralized by substantially all income producing assets of BCH, as well as the loans originated by the Customer ExAlt Trusts and custody trusts, excluding the ExAlt Participation Loans. If we do not raise enough capital to fully repay such obligations, HCLP’s collateral interest will remain in place, and the value of the collateral security of the HCLP Loan Agreement may significantly exceed amounts owed under the HCLP Loan Agreement. In the event of default on the HCLP Loan Agreement, HCLP shall have the right to, among other things, transfer the collateral in the name of HCLP, enforce collection of the collateral or take possession or control of any proceeds of the collateral. As a result, the terms of repayment of the principal balance of the HCLP Loan Agreement and the additional interest and fee payments as well as HCLP’s collateral interest in the assets of BCH may present conflicts of interests between Mr. Heppner, the Company and its stockholders.

The Company may be materially adversely affected by negative publicity.

The Company has received in the past, and may continue to receive in the future, negative publicity, which could adversely affect our reputation, operations, and financial condition. For example, we and certain of our officers and directors have been the subject of negative media coverage in the Wall Street Journal and other outlets regarding alleged self-dealing and the misuse of company funds. Although we and certain of our executive officers have filed a claim for defamation against Alexander Gladstone, the author of the Wall Street Journal’s previous media coverage concerning the Company, we may continue to experience negative attention in the media. Defamation claims by their nature are difficult to win, and we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or its impact on us or our business. Such proceedings are time consuming and expensive and, regardless of the factual basis for the assertions being made or the strength of the claims, can have a negative impact on the Company’s reputation, on the morale and performance of the Company’s employees and on the Company’s relationships with regulators. Such impacts could be exacerbated if we do not prevail in the litigation. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of our defamation claim, such litigation may divert the time and effort of senior management from the management of the Company and may also have an adverse impact on the Company’s ability to take timely advantage of various business and market opportunities. Additionally, such negative publicity has in the past, and may continue, to impact the willingness of our customers and other parties to transact business with us. These direct and indirect effects of negative publicity, and the demands of responding to and addressing it, may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s businesses, financial condition and results of operations. Negative publicity also could have the effect of heightening the other risks described in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the risks set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We have received a “Wells Notice” from the SEC.

On June 29, 2023, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the staff (the “Staff”) of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, stating that the Staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file a civil enforcement action against the Company alleging violations of certain provisions of the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. The Staff’s allegations appear to relate to, among other things, the Company’s association with an amendment to the debt coverage ratio calculation approved by certain holders of GWG Holdings issued debt in 2019 under an indenture and related disclosures by GWG Holdings, the December 31, 2019 valuation of the Company’s goodwill by a third-party valuation agent, potential contractual rights concerning an amendment to the Company’s governing documents and other items in the historical disclosures of GWG Holdings.

A Wells Notice is not a formal allegation or a finding of wrongdoing, but is a preliminary determination by the Staff to recommend to the SEC that a civil enforcement action or administrative proceeding be brought against the recipient. The Company maintains that our actions were appropriate and intends to vigorously defend this matter. The Company has made a Wells submission to the SEC demonstrating why an action against the Company would be unfounded. We intend to engage in further dialogue with the SEC Staff and contest any allegations of wrongdoing. Additionally, the Company understands that other parties, including Brad K. Heppner, also received Wells Notices related to the investigation of GWG Holdings. Mr. Heppner has communicated to the Company that he intends to vigorously defend himself. Individually, Mr. Heppner also made a Wells submission, and he intends to engage in further dialogue with the SEC and contest any allegations of wrongdoing.

The proposed action may seek remedies that include an injunction, cease-and-desist order, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, and civil money penalties. If the SEC were to authorize an action against us, it could seek an order enjoining the Company from engaging in future violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws, imposing civil monetary penalties, and/or providing for other equitable relief within the SEC’s authority. Additionally, in the event we or Mr. Heppner are found to have violated federal securities laws, we may be unable to utilize Regulation D or Regulation A under the Securities Act to raise additional capital on a basis exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, which would require us to use the Section 4(a)(2) exemption for our securities offerings and could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, if we are unable to utilize Regulation D or Regulation A due to such a “bad actor” disqualification, the investment documents for certain alternative assets held by the Customer ExAlt Trusts may also prohibit BFF from serving as trustee of the Customer ExAlt Trusts, and the impacted Customer ExAlt Trusts may need to replace BFF as their trustee, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The results of the Wells Notice process and any corresponding enforcement action, including the costs, timing and other potential consequences of responding and complying therewith, are unknown at this time.

Substantial future sales of shares of Class A common stock could cause the market price of our shares of Class A common stock to decline.

We are contractually obligated to prepare and file with the SEC multiple registration statements providing for the resale of the substantial majority of the shares of our outstanding Class A common stock, including for shares held by our largest shareholder, the GWG Wind Down Trust (as defined herein), which held approximately 152,701,487 shares of Class A common stock, or approximately 59% of our outstanding shares of Class A common stock, as of December 31, 2023, and has been formed for the purpose of selling shares of our Class A common stock it holds to satisfy claims deriving from the bankruptcy proceedings of GWG. Although the sale of shares of our outstanding Class A common stock do not result in the dilution of the interests of our public shareholders, the resale, or expected resale, of a substantial number of our shares of Class A common stock in the public market could adversely affect the market price for our shares of Class A common stock and make it more difficult for you to sell your shares of Class A common stock at times and prices that you feel are appropriate. Although the prevailing trading price of our Class A common stock is beneath that of the trading price of our Class A common stock at the closing of our Business Combination, certain of the holders of our Class A common stock purchased their shares for prices less than the current trading prices of our Class A common stock and could have an incentive to sell because they will still profit on sales. Further, we have registered for resale a significant amount of our Class A common stock pursuant to the SEPA and our Forward Purchase Agreement, which could result in further substantial dilution and depressed trading prices of our Class A common stock. Pursuant to the SEPA, we may issue and sell up to $250 million of shares of Class A common stock to the Yorkville Investor (as defined therein). The price at which we may issue and sell shares may be at either (i) 95% of the daily VWAP of the Class A common stock for any period commencing on the receipt of the advance notice by the Yorkville Investor and ending on 4:00 p.m. on the applicable advance notice date (“Pricing Option 1”) or (ii) 97% of the lowest daily VWAP of the Class A common stock during the three trading days following a notice to sell to the Yorkville Investor, provided that we are subject to certain caps on the amount of shares of Class A common stock that we may sell on any single day (“Pricing Option 2”). Assuming that (a) we issue and sell the full $250 million of shares of Class A common stock under the SEPA to the Yorkville Investor, (b) no beneficial ownership limitations, and (c) the issue price for such sales is $3.00 or $5.00 per share, such additional issuances would represent in the aggregate approximately 83,333,333 or 50,000,000 additional shares of Class A common stock, respectively, or approximately 24.5% or 16.3% of the total number of shares of Class A common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2023, after giving effect to such issuance. If the beneficial ownership limitation is not waived, we may issue approximately 25,695,237 shares of Class A common stock, or approximately 9.99% of the total number of shares of Class A common stock outstanding as of the date hereof. “Market Price” is defined as, for any Option 1 Pricing Period, the daily volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) of the Class A common stock on Nasdaq during the Option 1 Pricing Period, and for any Option 2 Pricing Period, the lowest VWAP of the Class A common stock on the Nasdaq during the Option 2 Pricing Period. Assuming a (i) Market Price of $2.74, (ii) no beneficial ownership limitations, and (iii) the receipt of stockholder approval to exceed the Exchange Cap, we may issue up to 95,693,779 shares of Class A common stock under Pricing Option 1 and up to 94,062,758 shares of Class A common stock under Pricing Option 2, which would reflect approximately 27.1% and 26.8%, respectively, of the outstanding shares of our Class A common stock as of December 31, 2023, after giving effect to such issuances.

Furthermore, while certain of our stockholders whose securities have been registered for resale (the “Selling Holders”) may experience a positive rate of return based on the current trading price of our Class A common stock, the public stockholders may not experience a similar rate of return on the securities they purchased due to differences in the purchase prices paid by the public stockholders and the Selling Holders and the current trading price of our Class A common stock. The Selling Holders will be able to sell all of their shares of Class A common stock for so long as the respective registration statements registering their securities are available for use.

Our Forward Purchase Agreement could result in an artificial ceiling price for the shares of our Class A common stock given the economic interests of our counterparty.

We have entered into a Forward Purchase Agreement with the Purchaser, pursuant to which the Purchaser agreed to purchase certain shares of Avalon Class A common stock at a purchase price per share of $10.588 for aggregate consideration of $25.0 million, which were converted into shares of Class A common stock and Series A preferred stock upon consummation of the Business Combination. The Series A preferred stock converted in accordance with its terms to shares of Class A common stock, and Purchaser held an aggregate of 2,956,480 shares of Class A common stock following such conversion (the “FPA Shares”). The Forward Purchase Agreement provides for two categories of FPA Shares: (i) 1,064,333 FPA Shares categorized as the “Purchased Shares” and (ii) the remaining 1,892,147 FPA Shares categorized as the “Prepaid Forward Shares”. Upon the sales of the Prepaid Forward Shares, the Purchaser will remit $10.588 per share, or such lesser price per share designated by the Company by written notice setting forth the Designated Price and the number Prepaid Forward Shares that may be sold at such price delivered to Purchaser prior to any such sales, to the Company. On June 8, 2025 (“Maturity Date”), any Prepaid Forward Shares not sold by the Purchaser will be returned to the Company and any remaining amounts in respect of the Prepaid Forward Shares will be retained by the Purchaser, less any amounts still owed to the Company from sales effected prior to the Maturity Date.

Although the Company may designate a per share sale amount less than $10.588 per share pursuant to the Forward Purchase Agreement, the current Designated Price of $10.588 currently incentivizes the Purchaser not to sell its shares of Class A common stock at a price below such amount. Given the number of shares of our Class A common stock held by the Purchaser, the additional selling pressure that may be created by sales of our Class A common stock by the Purchaser if the trading price of our Class A common stock reaches $10.588, such price may present an artificial ceiling for the value of the shares of our Class A common stock. In the event we do not designate a lower price per share than the Designated Price at which the Purchaser may sell shares of our Class A common stock, we may never recover the $20 million dollar cash amount retained by the Purchaser following our entry into the Forward Purchase Agreement, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our liquidity, profitability and business may be adversely affected by an inability to access, or ability to access only on unfavorable terms, the capital markets, and we may never obtain the maximum anticipated proceeds contemplated under current capital raising agreements such as the SEPA.

Many factors will affect our capital needs and their amount and timing, including our growth and profitability, as well as market disruptions and other unforeseeable developments, which may include the substantial potential dilutive effects of issuances under the SEPA and potential depressed trading prices resulting from significant resales of our Class A common stock by current shareholders. Our liquidity may be impaired by an inability to access, or ability to access only on unfavorable terms, equity markets or otherwise allocate liquidity optimally, an inability to sell assets or redeem our interests in the Collateral, or unforeseen outflows of cash or collateral. This situation may arise due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as a general market disruption or an operational problem that affects third parties or us, a disruption of the financial markets or negative views about the financial services industry generally, including concerns regarding fiscal matters in the United States and other geographic areas or the receipt of negative publicity, such as the negative media coverage we received in the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. Further, substantial resales of our Class A common stock, as well as our issuance of additional shares of Class A common stock pursuant to the SEPA, may result in depressed trading prices of our Class A common stock, which could further impair our ability to raise sufficient capital from third party operations to carry on our business in the ordinary course.

In addition, our ability to raise funding could be impaired if investors or lenders develop a negative perception of our long-term or short-term financial prospects. An increase in our debt may increase our leverage and reduce our interest coverage. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the future sale of equity, the ownership interest of our equity holders may be diluted.

If we are unable to raise additional capital through the methods above, then we may have difficulty entering into liquidity transactions, which would lead to a decrease in income earned by us.

Under the SEPA, the Company agreed to issue and sell to the Yorkville Investor, from time to time, and the Yorkville Investor agreed to purchase from the Company, up to $250 million of the Company’s shares of Class A common stock. The Company shall not affect any sales under the SEPA and the Yorkville Investor shall not have any obligation to purchase shares of Class A common stock under the SEPA to the extent that after giving effect to such purchase and sale the aggregate number of shares of Class A common stock issued under the SEPA together with any shares of Class A common stock issued in connection with any other related transactions that may be considered part of the same series of transactions, where the average price of such sales would be less than $2.74 and the number of shares issued would exceed 19.9% of the outstanding voting common stock as of December 31, 2023. Thus, the Company may not have access to the right to sell the full $250 million of shares of Class A common stock to the Yorkville Investor, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

The transfer of GWG’s assets to the GWG Wind Down Trust and the Litigation Trust pursuant to the Second Amended Plan could create significant uncertainties and risks for our continued operations and materially and adversely impact our financial operating results.

On April 20, 2022 and October 31, 2022, Debtors filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”) thereby commencing those certain Chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”). On June 20, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Debtors’ Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the “Second Amended Plan”), which became effective on August 1, 2023, (the “Effective Date”).

The Second Amended Plan provides for the creation of two liquidating trusts to effectuate a liquidation of the Debtors: (i) the GWG Wind Down Trust; and (ii) the Litigation Trust (the “Litigation Trust”). The Second Amended Plan provides that the GWG Wind Down Trust will take all necessary steps to wind down the business affairs of the Debtors and maximize the value of the Debtors’ non-litigation assets, including the Debtors’ equity interests in the Company. Under the Second Amended Plan, the trustee for the GWG Wind Down Trust is Elizabeth C. Freeman. Pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended Plan, all potential claims and causes of action of the Debtors’ estates against the Company have been assigned to and, potentially may be pursued by, the Litigation Trust. The initial funding amount of the Litigation Trust under the Second Amended Plan was $3 million in cash, and the Litigation Trust received all non-released litigation assets of the Debtors as well as the Debtors’ interest in any insurance policies covering directors and officers of the Debtors. The Second Amended Plan further provides that the trustee for the Litigation Trust is Michael I. Goldberg (the “Litigation Trustee”), who has the sole authority to make decisions and act with respect to the Litigation Trust assets. Proceeds from the Litigation Trust will be distributed to the GWG Wind Down Trust for distribution to holders of trust interests in accordance with the waterfall set forth in the Second Amended Plan and the trust agreement governing the GWG Wind Down Trust.

The Second Amended Plan also incorporates the terms of a mediated settlement (the “Mediated Settlement”) between the Official Committee of Bondholders (the “OCB”) and L Bond Management, LLC (the “LBM”). As a result, Pursuant to the Second Amended Plan, the Company did not receive a release, and all potential claims and causes of action of the Debtors’ estates against the Company, including the potential claims and causes of action described in the OCB’s Standing Motion (as defined below), have been assigned to and, potentially may be pursued by, the Litigation Trust.

The transfer of GWG’s assets to the GWG Wind Down Trust and Litigation Trust and their subsequent liquidation pursuant to the Second Amended Plan could create significant uncertainties and risks for our continued operations and/or materially and adversely impact our financial operating results. Additionally, the negative publicity, uncertainty, and risks associated with the Chapter 11 Cases and the OCB’s Standing Motion have negatively impacted and may continue to negatively impact investors’ willingness to engage with us until any related claims are resolved. More specifically, these uncertainties and risks have resulted in an investor advising us that it has refused to invest in connection with the Business Combination, and we have received indications from other potential investors that they would withhold their potential investments in the Company until these matters are resolved or until further clarity is available. As noted above, following the effective date of the Second Amended Plan, the Litigation Trustee has sole authority to pursue or resolve such claims. In connection with any mediation or otherwise, the Company intends to seek to resolve any claims that could be bought by the Litigation Trustee and GWG’s creditors against the Company, BCH, their respective officers and directors, and certain other related, affiliated, or associated parties. If such potential claims and causes of action are not released or resolved through such mediation or otherwise, any attendant litigation, including causes of action asserted by the Litigation Trust, depending on its outcome, or the potential for such litigation, could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition and could result in a decline of the value or perceived value of the Company, which could ultimately be reflected as a reduction in the market prices of our securities.

Among other things, as of the Effective Date, the Company held approximately 2.5 million shares of GWG common stock, and the Customer ExAlt Trusts held 9.8 million shares of GWG common stock and $94.8 million of outstanding principal amount of L Bonds. On the Effective Date, all securities issued by GWG, including GWG’s common stock, preferred stock and debt securities (including all L Bonds) were cancelled. Holders of such cancelled securities, including the Company and the Customer ExAlt Trusts, were delivered trust interests (the “New WDT Interests”) in GWG Wind Down Trust. As of September 30, 2023, Ben held 0.8 million interests of Series A1 and 2.5 million interests of Series E of the GWG Wind Down Trust, and the Customer ExAlt Trusts held 82.0 million, 14.5 million, and 9.8 million interests of Series A1, Series A2, and Series E, respectively, of the GWG Wind Down Trust. Through December 31, 2023, the Company has recognized a net loss of $25.9 million related to its interests in the GWG Wind Down Trust (or GWG Holdings, as applicable), and the Customer ExAlt Trusts have recognized a net loss of $192.8 million related to its interest in the GWG Wind Down Trust (or GWG Holdings, as applicable), all of which is reflected in the consolidated financial statements of Ben. If the value of such New WDT Interests received by the Company and the ExAlt Trusts in exchange for their GWG common stock and L Bonds were to continue to significantly drop, the value of the Company’s or the Customer ExAlt Trusts’ holdings of such New WDT Interests would also continue to significantly drop, which could result in a decline in our value and/or have a negative impact on our operating results. Such a decline in the perceived value or operating results of the Company, on a consolidated basis, could ultimately be reflected as a reduction in the market price of our securities, which could adversely influence our ability to raise capital in the future.

Additionally, a subsidiary of the Company has loans to certain Customer ExAlt Trusts in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $145.9 million (net of unamortized discounts), which are collateralized by the New WDT Interests held by these certain Customer ExAlt Trusts. The value and/or availability of the such New WDT Interests to satisfy the loans have been materially impacted as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases and the Second Amended Plan and may also be materially impacted as a result of potential litigation against the Company relating to its transactions with GWG. As of December 31, 2023, an allowance for credit losses of $145.9 million was recorded on these loans, principally related to the decline in the value of the GWG common stock and L Bonds (prior to their cancellation). The allowance for credit losses is eliminated in the presentation of our consolidated financial statements but directly impacts the income (loss) allocable to the Company’s and BCH’s equity holders. We may be required to record additional impairment charges on the loans and a further reduction in the value of the New WDT Interests received in exchange for such L Bonds or GWG common stock could have a material adverse effect on the Customer ExAlt Trust’s ability to repay the current carrying value of the loans.

As a result of the issuance of the New WDT Interests, the Company or the ExAlt Trusts may receive distributions via the GWG Wind Down Trust as set forth in the Second Amended Plan and the trust agreement governing the GWG Wind Down Trust. Any further impairment charges related to the New WDT Interests would be reflected in our consolidated statement of comprehensive income (loss) and would impact the income (loss) allocatable to Beneficient’s equity holders, each of which could result in a decline in our value. Such a decline in the perceived value of the Company could ultimately be reflected as a reduction in the market price of our securities, which could adversely influence our ability to raise capital in the future.

We may face risks related to allegations in GWG’s Chapter 11 Cases, which could damage our reputation and otherwise be disruptive to our business.

We have had numerous transactions with GWG since 2018, including transactions that have recently been completed. As part of the Chapter 11 Cases, GWG adopted resolutions (the “Resolution”), which, among other things, formed the Special Committee and the Investigations Committee of the GWG board of directors, comprised of certain independent directors (the “Independent Directors”). The Resolutions gave (i) the Special Committee the authority to, among other things, examine, investigate, analyze, assess, evaluate and negotiate the terms and conditions of any proposed plan of reorganization or liquidation submitted by GWG and its debtor-affiliates to the Bankruptcy Court for confirmation in connection with the Chapter 11 Cases and (ii) the Investigations Committee the authority to, among other things, conduct an investigation of claims and causes of action that arise under or relate to any transactions, relationships or conduct involving the Debtors and any third party, including, without limitation, the Company, as well as its officers and directors, relating to the Company’s transactions with GWG.

On the effective date of the Second Amended Plan, which occurred on August 1, 2023, GWG transferred any potential claims against the Company and certain other parties to the Litigation Trust and it is possible that claims or causes of action arising from these transactions could be advanced against the Company in the future. Such claims and causes of action could include avoidance actions and other causes of actions related to such transactions, including: (i) challenges whereby GWG released its right to appoint a majority of the members of Ben Management board of directors, (ii) challenges to the reasonableness of the value received by the Debtors in such transactions, and (iii) efforts to recover the value of, or avoid, any transfers to the Company. The Special Committee filed a motion seeking the appointment of a mediator to oversee the mediation of issues between the Company, GWG and its debtor- affiliates, the Independent Directors (in their capacities as members of both the Special Committee and the Investigations Committee) and certain other creditor constituencies as a means to reach a “global consensus” and negotiate a value-maximizing Chapter 11 plan, including (i) the terms of GWG’s plan of reorganization, including governance of the reorganized GWG, and (ii) the framework for maximizing the value of GWG’s interests in the Company.

Furthermore, in connection with GWG’s Chapter 11 Cases, the OCB filed a motion seeking standing (the “Standing Motion”) to pursue causes of action that include (i) avoidance actions including challenges to transactions between GWG and the Company under theories of actual or constructive fraudulent transfer, (ii) allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former and current Company directors and officers, including Ben’s CEO, for approving such transactions, (iii) advance a basis for the claims that GWG did not receive reasonably equivalent value in these transactions and (iv) seek recovery from the Company and the other named individuals, including Ben’s CEO. More specifically, such challenged transactions relate to (i) GWG’s commitment to loan the Company $65 million that GWG funded in two tranches on May 31, 2019 ($50 million on June 3, 2019 and $15 million on November 22, 2019), (ii) GWG’s purchase of $10 million of equity in the Company on June 12, 2019, (iii) GWG’s capital contribution to the Company of $79 million on December 31, 2019, (iv) $130.2 million in contributions by GWG to the Company pursuant to a Preferred Series C Unit Purchase Agreement, and (v) the Company’s ultimate decoupling from GWG. Additionally, the motion included proposed claims against certain of GWG’s former directors for an illegal dividend under Delaware law and claims for unjust enrichment against certain of GWG’s former directors, individuals and corporate entities affiliated with or controlled by Ben’s CEO, transferees of certain allegedly fraudulent transfers, and certain broker-dealers who marketed and sold L Bonds. The OCB’s Standing Motion stated that the proposed claims could add in excess of $500 million worth of additional value to the Debtors’ estate.

On February 22, 2023, the Company and the Company’s CEO, Brad K. Heppner, filed motions to object to the OCB’s Standing Motion that refutes the allegations. On March 9, 2023, the Debtors, the OCB and LBM entered into the Mediated Settlement in the Chapter 11 Cases, the terms of which were incorporated into the Second Amended Plan. The Second Amended Plan provides for the creation of a Litigation Trust with an initial funding amount of $3 million in cash, and all potential claims and causes of action of the Debtors’ estates against the Company were, unless otherwise settled, assigned to and, potentially may be pursued by the Litigation Trust, including those claims related to the OCB’s Standing Motion. On

June 20, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Second Amended Plan, which became effective on August 1, 2023, and the Standing Motion was deemed to be withdrawn.

In the event that the Litigation Trustee asserts claims against us, whether related to the causes of action described in the Standing Motion or not, we may face significant risk, including the cost of protracted litigation. Even if no litigation is brought by the Litigation Trust relating to the Standing Motion or other claims, or if we prevail in any litigation stemming from the allegations, the existence of the allegations alone could result in reputational harm as a result of negative public sentiment, increased scrutiny from our regulators, and reduced investor and stakeholder confidence. Additionally, the allegations may impact the willingness of our customers and other parties to transact business with us. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any claims should they be brought by the Litigation Trust.

The Company is currently involved in legal proceedings and may be a party to additional claims and litigation in the future.

On February 18, 2022, Paul Capital Advisors (“PCA”) filed a lawsuit against MHT Financial, L.L.C. (“MHT”), BCG, and two trust advisors (the “Trust Advisors”), Murray Holland (part-owner of MHT and former Chairman, President and CEO of GWG) and James Turvey (an employee of BCG) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court” or the “Court of Chancery”). While BCG was named as a defendant, PCA did not assert claims against or seek relief from BCG but instead asserted one cause of action that only sought the removal and replacement of the Trust Advisors. The lawsuit concerns a set of transactions that utilized a trust structure with MHT as the sole beneficiary. Through this trust structure, PCA sold illiquid investments with a net asset value of approximately $500 million to MHT in exchange for a contractual right from MHT to receive proceeds derived from an auction of BCG securities held in certain trusts (the “Trusts”). Pursuant to a separate contingent value right (“CVR”) contract (the “CVR Contract”) between BCG, affiliates of BCG (collectively, the “BEN CVR Parties”), and MHT, BCG agreed to undertake certain obligations if consideration from the auction of the BCG securities held in the Trusts resulted in an amount less than the net asset value of the illiquid investments MHT purchased from PCA (a “Shortfall ET Amount”), and other precedent conditions occurred. These obligations included, among other things, making quarterly distributions of “Available Cash” to the Trusts until the distributions equaled the Shortfall ET Amount.

Ultimately, GWG won the auction of the Company securities with a winning bid comprised of cash, GWG common stock, and L Bonds. While the cash consideration has been paid to PCA, the GWG stock and L Bonds remain in the Trusts until they are liquidated. The original complaint asserted one cause of action: that the Trust Advisors had breached their purported fiduciary duties to PCA. The sole relief PCA sought was the removal and replacement of the Trust Advisors. On March 14, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint, disputing in their briefs filed on March 28, 2022 that PCA is a beneficiary of any kind to the Trusts, and therefore not owed fiduciary duties by the Trust Advisors, and that PCA has no right to remove and replace the Trust Advisors. Further, the Company sought to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that no claims were asserted against the Company and no relief was sought from it.

On April 18, 2022, PCA amended its original complaint. The amended complaint asserted six new causes of action arising out of the same set of transactions, including: (1) purported breaches of contract against BCG, MHT, and the Trust Advisors, including a purported breach of the CVR Contract; (2) purported fraud by the Company and MHT pertaining to the execution of the Second Amendment to the CVR Contract; and (3) promissory estoppel against MHT, the Company, and Murray Holland in his capacity as a Trust Advisor. The amended complaint also sought additional relief in the form of (1) damages “in an amount to be proven at trial” and (2) an order granting rescission of an amendment to the CVR Contract or a holding declaring it invalid. On April 18, 2022, Mr. Holland and Mr. Turvey resigned as Trust Advisors to the Trusts that were the subject matter of the complaint. On April 19, 2022, MHT, as the sole beneficiary of the Trusts, appointed Dr. John Stahl as the new Trust Advisor. On April 28, 2022, the Court found that PCA’s original cause of action to remove Mr. Holland and Mr. Turvey as Trust Advisors was moot. On May 6, 2022, PCA amended its complaint again to request that Dr. Stahl be removed as Trust Advisor.

Additionally, while the second amended complaint maintains the prior causes of action, it retracts PCA’s prior, false statements claiming that the Company had not supplied PCA’s representative the relevant documents before he signed an amendment to the CVR Contract. PCA still, however, requests that the Court rescind this amendment which memorialized the parties’ prior agreements regarding certain definitions negotiated and approved by PCA and its counsel. On August 17, 2022, the Court issued a memorandum opinion that dismissed count I of PCA’s complaint, which requested Dr. Stahl’s removal, after finding that PCA is not a beneficiary of the Trusts and, therefore, lacks standing to request the removal of any Trust Advisor. Additionally, because the Court held that PCA is not a beneficiary of the Trusts, the parties agreed that count II, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty against the Trust Advisors, should also be dismissed. On October 3, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing count I of PCA’s complaint in accordance with its memorandum opinion and count II in light of the parties’ agreement that it should also be dismissed.

On November 1, 2022, defendants filed their opening briefs in support of their motions to dismiss the remaining counts. On December 20, 2022, PCA filed its answering brief in opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss the remaining counts. On January 24, 2023, defendants filed their reply briefs. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on May 8, 2023. On August 29, 2023, the Court issued a letter opinion that denied defendants’ motions to dismiss with respect to most of the remaining counts, explaining that the Court was unwilling to determine the parties’ rights under the various agreements at the pleadings stage and that discovery may make these issues ripe for summary judgment. The Court did, however, grant defendants’ motions to dismiss as to one of PCA’s promissory estoppel claims and its claim for equitable fraud. On October 25, 2023, defendants filed their respective answers to PCA’s second amended complaint.

This litigation can subject us to substantial costs and divert resources and the attention of management from our business. If these claims are successful, our business could be seriously harmed. Even if the claims do not result in protracted litigation or are resolved in our favor, the time and resources needed to resolve such claims could divert our management’s resources and adversely affect our business.

The CVR Contract is an agreement between the BEN CVR Parties, and MHT, which was dated as of September 1, 2017. PCA is not a party to the CVR Contract nor an intended third-party beneficiary of the CVR Contract. In the CVR Contract, among other things, the Company agreed to undertake certain obligations if: (1) the consideration from the auction of the Company securities held in the Trusts resulted in an amount less than the net asset value of the illiquid investments MHT purchased from PCA (a Shortfall ET Amount) and (2) certain other conditions were not satisfied, resulting in what the CVR Contract referred to as a “Distribution Trigger Event.” Under the CVR Contract, a Distribution Trigger Event could potentially occur if the BEN CVR Parties failed to undertake an Initial Public Listing (as defined in the CVR Contract) within 24 months of the auction closing date of the Company securities, which was defined to include a transaction or event resulting in the listing of the Company’s common units (or any securities into which the common units may be exchanged in a business combination or similar transaction) on a national stock exchange or quotation in an automated quotation system. In the event of the occurrence of a Distribution Trigger Event, the BEN CVR Parties potentially would have had to comply with specified obligations arising in certain circumstances, including making quarterly distributions of “Available Cash” to the Trusts until the distributions equaled the Shortfall ET Amount, if any (a “Mandatory Distribution Period”).

During such a Mandatory Distribution Period, the CVR Contract may have also required the BEN CVR Parties to cease certain business activities, including the financing or acquisition of future private equity or other alternative asset loans unless financed through the issuance of equity or debt that is subordinate to the obligations under the CVR Contract. Except where the description of the CVR Contract expressly refers to PCA, the description of the CVR Contract’s terms is as asserted by the Company, and they are currently in dispute and being litigated in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

As a threshold matter, the parties disagree about whether PCA is an intended third-party beneficiary of the CVR Contract. PCA asserts it is an intended third-party beneficiary with standing to enforce the CVR Contract. The BEN CVR Parties disagree with PCA because Section 4.9 of the CVR Contract expressly disclaims that there are any third-party beneficiaries of CVR Contract other than the Trusts. In addition to the threshold issue of standing, the parties disagree about (1) whether there is a Shortfall ET Amount under the CVR Contract’s definition of Net Auction Consideration, (2) whether there was an Initial Public Listing as defined in the CVR Contract, and (3) whether the CVR Contract terminated under these disputed definitions.

First, PCA asserts that a Shortfall ET Amount exists because it alleges that the Trusts have not received Net Auction Consideration, which PCA argues is defined to only include cash, in an amount equal to the net asset value of the illiquid investments MHT purchased from PCA (NAV of ~$500 million). As a result, PCA claims damages in the amount of $350 million. In contrast, the BEN CVR Parties believe there is no Shortfall ET Amount because the Trusts have received Net Auction Consideration that PCA’s valuation expert determined had a value exceeding the NAV of the investments purchased from PCA (valued at ~$550 million), which was comprised of $150 million in cash and approximately $400 million in GWG L-Bonds and GWG common stock. The BEN CVR Parties disagree that Net Auction Consideration only includes cash received by the Trusts in light of (1) an acknowledgement in which PCA agreed that “for all purposes Net Auction Consideration included all Auction Consideration” and that “the fair market value of all Auction Consideration shall be the fair market value as reflected [by PCA’s valuation expert]” and (2) an amendment to the CVR Contract that amended the definition of Net Auction Consideration to include non-cash consideration received by the Trusts and that was signed by a PCA general partner serving as a Ben director for purposes of approving such an amendment.

Second, PCA asserts the BEN CVR Parties failed to undertake an Initial Public Listing, alleging the BEN CVR Parties never filed a registration statement. The BEN CVR Parties disagree because they did exchange common units for GWG common stock, satisfying the CVR Contract’s definition of an Initial Public Listing. Third, as a result of the disputed terms above, the parties disagree about whether the CVR Contract terminated. Under the BEN CVR Parties’ view of the disputed terms, the

CVR Contract terminated under its terms. But because PCA asserts that a Shortfall ET Amount exists, PCA disagrees that the CVR Contract has terminated and claims that the amendment to the CVR Contract was fraudulently induced.

To date, PCA has not sought any equitable relief with respect to the CVR Contract and instead has only requested monetary damages. If PCA is successful in its claim that it has standing to enforce the CVR Contract, that the CVR Contract has not terminated on its terms, and that the Company and its related parties have breached certain obligations under the CVR Contract, PCA may be able to recover substantial damages from the Company. Such damages could include an award to PCA of monetary damages in an amount of up to $350 million, the alleged Shortfall ET Amount, plus costs and expenses. Any such recovery against the Company (or Beneficient) could materially affect the ability of the Company (or Beneficient) to continue its operations.

Additionally, on December 16, 2022, a former member of the board of directors of Ben Management initiated a private arbitration in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, challenging the termination of certain equity awards under two incentive plans by the administrator of the incentive plans. The claimant seeks total damages of $36.3 million plus attorney’s fees and punitive damages. A hearing took place on August 23, 2023, and the arbitrator has notified the parties that the record was officially closed. On December 14, 2023, the parties received notice that a draft award had been submitted by the arbitrator, and the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce will review the draft award at one of its next sessions. A decision in the arbitration is expected in the near future. The Company denies the claims asserted in the arbitration. Given the uncertainties attendant to litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible losses. Even if the claims do not result in protracted litigation or are resolved in our favor and the favor of our directors, the time and resources needed to resolve such claims could divert our management’s resources and adversely affect our business.

On February 18, 2022, Shirin Bayati and Mojan Kamalvand, on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against GWG, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Holland, its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Evans, and certain past and present members of the board of directors of GWG and BCG (Roy Bailey, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, and David H. de Weese). The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act by issuing materially misleading statements in a June 3, 2020 registration statement. On April 20, 2022, GWG filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. On April 21, 2022, the district court ordered all parties to submit statements by May 5, 2022 on whether the automatic stay in bankruptcy extends to the non-debtor defendants. On April 25, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel. On May 2, 2022, a notice of dismissal was filed, dismissing defendants Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Brad K. Heppner, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer. On May 12, 2022, the district court extended the bankruptcy stay to all non-debtor defendants, although it permitted a limited modification of lifting of the stay to allow the court to consider the pending lead plaintiff motion. On August 5, 2022, the district court entered an order appointing Thomas Horton and Frank Moore as lead plaintiffs for the putative class. On May 26, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, filed a second class action lawsuit against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering.

On March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against Ben, certain members of the Board (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO and Emerson Equity LLC (“Emerson”) (the “Scura Action”). The suit alleges that the defendants defrauded GWG investors in connection with the sale of GWG’s L Bonds and preferred stock, and it asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG’s L Bonds or preferred stock of GWG between December 23, 2017 and April 20, 2022. The suit alleges that (i) the Company, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and (iii) that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the lead plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate the Bayati and Scura Actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Scura Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice.

On August 16, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the Lead Plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a notice regarding the confirmation of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 plan in the GWG bankruptcy, a motion seeking to lift the bankruptcy stay and a motion to consolidate the Bayati and Horton Actions. On September 12, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the Bayati and Horton Actions. The court ordered that the consolidated action shall bear the caption In re

GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court lifted the bankruptcy stay and ordered the Lead Plaintiffs to file a new consolidated complaint within 20 days. On October 2, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer (the “Ben Individual Defendants”), Murray T. Holland, Timothy L. Evans, David H. de Weese, Roy W. Bailey, David F. Chavenson, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and further alleges that the Company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants David Chavenson and David H. de Weese filed a joint motion to dismiss. The Lead Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the various motions to dismiss is February 20, 2024, and replies are due March 21, 2024. The remaining defendants have not yet responded to the complaint, as the deadlines to respond still extend to January 2024. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.

On October 27, 2023, David Scura filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against Brad K. Heppner, Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, the Company and FOXO, alleging violation of the Texas Securities Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to defraud. Also on October 27, 2023, Clifford Day and Carla Monahan filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against the same defendants, alleging the same claims. The parties have agreed to move the defendants’ deadline to respond to the petition to February 19, 2024. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.

As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $126.0 million of debt (including unamortized premium thereon), which is derived from (i) the HH-BDH Credit Agreement with HH-BDH, an entity affiliated with Hicks Holdings, of which Mr. Hicks is the managing member; and (ii) BCH’s secured loans with HCLP, that is an indirect subsidiary of Highland Consolidated, LP. The majority of HCLP is indirectly owned by The Highland Investment Holdings Trust, of which Mr. Heppner and his family are the beneficiaries. Mr. Heppner is a trustee but does not possess any discretionary authority with respect to the management, distribution or administration of the trust’s current assets (including HCLP). The level of debt outstanding each period could adversely affect our financial flexibility. We also bear risk at the time our debt matures. Our ability to make interest and principal payments, to refinance our debt obligations and to fund our purchase of alternative assets and planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash from operations. This, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control, such as an environment of rising interest rates.

Furthermore, in the past, we have sought to extend the maturity date of our secured loans with HCLP and have paid fees in connection with this extension. We may need to amend our HH-BDH Credit Agreement and the HCLP Loan Agreement in the future and may incur additional amendment fees as a result. If the Company incurs additional debt or liabilities, or if we are unable to maintain a level of cash flows from operating activities, the Company’s ability to pay its obligations on its debt could be adversely affected.

The Company depends upon cash distributions from its subsidiaries, and regulatory requirements, contractual restrictions on distributions to the Company or adverse events at one of our operating subsidiaries could materially and adversely affect our ability to pay our debts and the Company’s ability to continue operating its business.

The Company conducts its operations through operating subsidiaries, and as such its most significant assets are cash and its ownership interests in its subsidiaries, controlled affiliates and equity investees. Accordingly, our ability to meet our obligations, including our debt-related and dividend-payment obligations, materially depends upon the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute cash to us. In this regard, the ability of the Company’s subsidiaries to distribute cash to the Company is, and will continue to be, restricted by certain negative covenants contained in the HCLP Loan Agreement and the HH-BDH Credit Agreement.

The negative covenants in the HCLP Loan Agreement include, among others, subject to certain exceptions:

•incurring any lien, including any pledge, upon any of BCH’s property;

•incurring any indebtedness;

•disposing of any Funding Trust loan or loan agreement;

•making any restricted payment, including dividends or other distributions with respect to any equity interests of any person, including the Company; and

•issuing any securities that are senior to the BCH Preferred A.1 or the BCH Preferred A.0.

The negative covenants in the HH-BDH Credit Agreement include, among others, subject to certain exceptions:

•incurring any indebtedness;

•incurring any liens on its property, assets or revenues;

•becoming a party to a merger or consolidation;

•making certain loans and other investments;

•disposing of certain assets;

•making any restricted payment;

•engaging in certain other transactions with affiliates;

•engaging in any business other than their current business;

•making changes to its accounting treatment or tax reporting treatment;

•entering into certain agreements that would prevent performance under the HH-BDH Credit Agreement or restrict the creation of a lien to secure the Secured Obligations (as defined in the HH-BDH Credit Agreement);

•acquiring any subsidiary; and

•amending certain organizational documents.

Certain of the negative covenants listed above apply to both the Loan Parties and to the Beneficient Parties (as defined in the HH-BDH Credit Agreement), which may have the effect of limiting the Company and its subsidiaries’ ability to make dividend payments or certain other distributions. In addition, the HH-BDH Credit Agreement contains certain financial maintenance covenants, including a debt service coverage ratio. If any of these limitations were to materially impede the flow of cash to us, our ability to service and repay our debt and pay dividends would be materially and adversely affected. In addition, any adverse corporate event at the subsidiary level, such as a declaration of bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization or any other event of default under the credit agreements governing our secured loans from HCLP or under the HH-BDH Credit Agreement, could adversely affect the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute cash to us, and thereby materially and adversely affect our ability to service and repay our debt and make cash dividend payments, and negatively impact our ability to continue operations.

Our indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition and may otherwise adversely impact our business operations. We and our subsidiaries may incur additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $126.0 million of debt (including unamortized deferred financing costs thereon), which includes (i) $23.7 million (including unamortized discount thereon) derived from the Term Loan with HH-BDH and (ii) $102.3 million (including unamortized premium thereon) derived from BCH’s secured loans with HCLP, a Delaware limited liability company, that is an indirect subsidiary of Highland Consolidated, LP. Furthermore, we could raise additional debt to fund our operations. Our indebtedness could have significant effects on our business and the holders of our equity. For example, it could:

•require us to use a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to service our indebtedness, which

•would reduce the available cash flow to fund acquisitions of alternative assets, working capital and other

•general corporate purposes, including the repayment of short term obligations;

•require payments of principal and interest that may be greater than our cash flow from operations;

•force us to dispose of loans or other investments, possibly on disadvantageous terms, to make payments on our debt;

•restrict us from exploiting other business opportunities;

•make it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations; and

The HCLP Loan Agreement is collateralized by all of the assets of BCH and the loans, excluding the ExAlt Participation Loans, originated by the Customer ExAlt Trusts and certain of the custody trusts, and the Term Loan under the HH-BDH Credit Agreement is collateralized by pledges of substantially all of the assets of Beneficient Financing, BCH’s equity interests in Beneficient Financing, certain equity interests in the Custody Trust and certain deposit accounts.

Ben, through its subsidiaries, is a party to the HCLP Loan Agreement with HCLP. HCLP is an indirect subsidiary of Highland Consolidated, LP and Ben’s CEO is a beneficiary and trustee of the trusts that control and are the partners of Highland Consolidated, LP; however, he has relinquished his authority as a trustee of such trusts with respect to Highland

Consolidated, L.P. The HCLP Loan Agreement provides for accruing interest at the rate of 9.5%, and is guaranteed by affiliates of BCH as borrower. It contains standard provisions, including customary events of default and termination events and related covenants. As of December 31, 2023, approximately $102.3 million (including unamortized premium thereon) of debt was outstanding under the HCLP Loan Agreement (the “HCLP Loan”).

The HCLP Loan Agreement is collateralized by substantially all income producing assets of BCH, as well as the loans originated by the Customer ExAlt Trusts and custody trusts, excluding the ExAlt Participation Loans. If we do not raise enough capital to fully repay such obligations, HCLP’s collateral interest will remain in place, and the value of the collateral security of the HCLP Loan Agreement may significantly exceed amounts owed under the HCLP Loan.

Furthermore, the HH-BDH Credit Agreement is secured by pledges of substantially all of the assets of Beneficient Financing, BCH’s equity interests in Beneficient Financing, 97.5% of the equity interests held by a certain Custody Trust which, as of December 31, 2023, represents approximately 38.6% of all assets held by the Customer ExAlt Trusts, and certain deposit accounts. Furthermore, pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement entered into in connection with the HH-BDH Credit Agreement, if HH-BDH and/or BCH default under the HH-BDH Credit Agreement and such default results in a foreclosure on, or other forfeiture of, the Pledged Equity Interests, BCH will be required to issue Replacement Equity Interests to Hicks Holdings.

Fluctuations in interest rates and foreign exchange rates may negatively impact our business.

Fluctuations in interest rates and foreign exchange rates may negatively impact our business. These rates are highly sensitive to many factors beyond our control, including general economic conditions, both domestic and foreign, and the monetary and fiscal policies of various governmental and regulatory authorities. An adverse change in the base rates upon which our interest rates are determined, including the SOFR could have a material adverse effect on our financial position. Rising interest rates have increased our costs of borrowing. Volatility in the credit markets, including due to the recent bank failures as well as the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank’s actions and pace of interest rate increases to combat inflation in the U.S., may further increase our interest payments. As a result, we may adopt asset and liability management policies to minimize the potential adverse effects of changes in interest rates and foreign exchange rates, primarily by altering the mix and maturity of liquidity transactions, interests in the Collateral, funding sources, and derivatives. However, even with these policies in place, a change in interest rates and foreign exchange rates can impact our financial condition.

Furthermore, the use of SOFR as the benchmark rate for certain of our variable indebtedness may adversely affect our business or financial condition. Using SOFR as the basis on which interest on the Term Loan is calculated may result in interest rates and/or payments that do not directly correlate over time with the interest rates and/or payments that would have been made on our obligations if LIBOR was available in its current form. Although SOFR has been endorsed by the Alternative Reference Rate Committee as its preferred replacement for LIBOR, it remains uncertain whether or when SOFR or other alternative reference rates will be widely accepted by lenders as the replacement for LIBOR. This may, in turn, impact the liquidity of the SOFR loan market, and SOFR itself, with the risk of increased volatility, which could result in higher borrowing costs for us. Further, as the use of SOFR-based rates is relatively new, there could be unanticipated difficulties, disruptions or methodological or other changes with the calculation and publication of SOFR based rates, which in turn could trigger another benchmark transition or otherwise cause a reliance on an alternate base rate. This could also result in increased borrowing costs for us and thereby have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.