Beneficient

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 Holdings, Inc., 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 Ben (Roy Bailey, Peter Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad Heppner, Thomas Hicks, Dennis Lockhart, Bruce Schnitzer, and David DeWeese) (the “Bayati Action”). The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 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, Movants Thomas Horton and Frank Moore filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel. On May 2, 2022, a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was filed, dismissing defendants Peter Cangany, Jr., Brad Heppner, Thomas Hicks, Dennis Lockhart, and Bruce Schnitzer. On May 12, 2022, the district court extended the bankruptcy stay to all non-debtor defendants, although it permitted a limited modification or lifting of the stay to allow the court to consider the pending lead plaintiff motion. On June 1, 2022, the bankruptcy court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in order to allow the Court to appoint lead plaintiffs. The next day, the Court lifted the stay in accordance with the bankruptcy court order. 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 all others 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 (the “Horton Action”).

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, 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, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer (the “Ben Individual Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants Murray Holland, Roy Bailey, Tim Evans, Whitley Penn, David Chavenson and David H. de Weese filed motions to dismiss. The Lead Plaintiffs’ responded to the various motions to dismiss on February 20, 2024, and the defendants (other than Whitley Penn) filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on March 21, 2024. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.

On February 18, 2022, Paul Capital Advisors filed a lawsuit against MHT Financial, L.L.C., BCG, and two Trust Advisors, Murray Holland (part-owner of MHT and former Chairman, President and CEO of GWG) and James Turvey (an employee of BCG). While BCG was named as a defendant, PCA did not assert claims against or seek relief from BCG but instead only sought the removal and replacement of the Trust Advisors. The lawsuit concerns a series 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 and certain trusts (the “Trusts”) in exchange for a contractual right from MHT to receive proceeds derived from an auction of BCG securities held in the Trusts. Ultimately, GWG won with a winning bid comprised of cash, GWG common stock, and GWG L-Bonds. While the cash consideration has been paid to PCA, the GWG stock and GWG 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 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, BCG sought to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that no claims were asserted against BCG 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 series of transactions, including: (1) purported breaches of contract against BCG, MHT, and the Trust

Advisors; (2) purported fraud by BCG and MHT pertaining to the execution of the Second Amendment to the CVR Contract; and (3) promissory estoppel against MHT, BCG, and the Trust Advisors. 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 one of the transaction agreements 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 to request that Dr. Stahl be removed as Trust Advisor.

On August 17, 2022, the Court of Chancery issued a memorandum opinion that dismissed PCA’s claim under the first count, which requested Dr. Stahl’s removal, after finding that PCA is not a beneficiary of the Trusts, and, therefore, has no standing to request the removal of any Trust Advisor. In addition, because the Court held that PCA is not a beneficiary of the Trusts, the parties have agreed that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trust Advisors should 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, and the Court took the matter under advisement.

On November 9, 2023, defendants filed a motion to bifurcate, requesting that the Court of Chancery first resolve the threshold issue of PCA’s standing under the CVR Contract and Exchange Trust Agreements before proceeding on the merits. On November 29, 2023, PCA filed its opposition to defendants’ motion to bifurcate, and on December 8, 2023, defendants filed their reply brief. On June 24, 2024, the Court of Chancery heard oral argument and issued its ruling granting defendants’ motion to bifurcate. In its ruling, the Court of Chancery ordered the parties to promptly conduct limited standing-related discovery to allow final resolution of the standing issue on summary judgment by January 2025.

Defendants continue to believe PCA’s claims are baseless and intend to vigorously defend against each and every cause of action asserted against them in the second amended complaint. Briefing related to defendants’ motions to dismiss the remaining counts recently concluded. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of this claim, we are currently unable to estimate the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible losses, if any, or the impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

On December 16, 2022, a former member of the Board of Directors of Beneficient Management, LLC 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 sought total damages of $36.3 million plus attorney’s fees and punitive damages. On April 23, 2024, the sole arbitrator held that in terminating the claimant’s equity awards, the Company had breached its contractual obligations, and as a result, awarded the claimant $55.3 million in compensatory damages, including pre-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest was also awarded to claimant. Neither attorneys’ fees nor punitive damages were awarded to the claimant. The Company was also asked to pay arbitration-related costs in the amount of approximately $128,850. The Company is exploring available options with respect to the award, which, should the Company be unable to negotiate a settlement with the claimant, may include the filing of a petition or motion to vacate the award under applicable law. The Company has recorded a loss related to the award in the year ended March 31, 2024 statement of comprehensive income (loss) in the amount of$55.0 million.

Furthermore, 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 its board of directors (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. 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) BCG, 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 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 Technologies, Inc. (“FOXO”), alleging violation of the Texas Securities Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to defraud and seeking compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The same day, Clifford Day and Carla Monahan filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against the same defendants, alleging the same claims. The parties agreed to move the defendants’ deadline to respond to the petition to February 19, 2024. On April 10, 2024, the plaintiffs and Ben parties entered into a twelve-month tolling agreement, and the plaintiffs filed motions to nonsuit their claims that the courts granted on April 12, 2024 and April 16, 2024, respectively. The Company and the Ben Individual Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.

On June 29, 2023, the Company received a “Wells Notice” from 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 relating to the Company’s association with GWG Holdings. We maintain that our actions were appropriate and that we vigorously defended ourselves in this matter. On July 1, 2024, the Company and Mr. Heppner received termination letters from the SEC advising the Company that the SEC’s investigations related to the Company and Mr. Heppner had concluded and that the Staff does not intend to recommend any enforcement actions by the SEC. The termination letters were provided to the Company and Mr. Heppner under the guidelines of the final paragraph of Securities Act Release No. 5310 which states, among other things, that “[such notice] must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff’s investigation of that particular matter.” While there have been no further actions to date, there can be no assurance that there will not be any further action on this or other matters by the SEC, and the Company may also be subject to further examinations, investigations, proceedings and orders by other regulatory authorities in the future.

On April 19, 2024, the Litigation Trustee the LT Complaint as an Adversary Proceeding in the bankruptcy of GWG currently pending in the Bankruptcy Court against Ben Management, the Company, BCH, BCC, New BCC, BHI, various current or former officers and directors of the Company, HCLP and certain of its affiliates, former officers and directors of the Company’s former parent company, trustees of certain trusts that are directly or indirectly controlled by, or operate for the benefit of, Ben’s CEO and founder or his family, entities directly or indirectly held by, or that are under common control with, such trusts, and in which Ben’s CEO and his family members are among classes of economic beneficiaries, whether or not Ben’s CEO is entitled to economic distributions from such trusts, and others. The LT Complaint alleges causes of action that include (i) actual or constructive fraudulent transfer for certain transactions between GWG and the Company or its affiliates, (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, (iii) unjust enrichment, (iv) avoidance of any purported releases of the defendants, and (v) disallowance of the claims filed by certain defendants, including the Company, in the GWG bankruptcy case.

More specifically, such challenged transactions relate to (i) GWG’s purchase of $10 million of equity in the Company on June 12, 2019, (ii) GWG’s commitment on May 31, 2019 to loan trusts affiliated with the Company $65 million that GWG funded in two tranches ($50 million on June 3, 2019 and $15 million on November 22, 2019) and the repayment of such loan, (iii) GWG’s capital contribution to the Company of $79 million on December 31, 2019, (iv) approximately $145 million in capital 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 LT Complaint seeks to avoid the debts owed by the Company to HCLP. The LT Complaint seeks to, among other things, avoid certain of the transactions and/or recover damages, attorney’s fees and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The LT Complaint does not purport to estimate the damages sought. The Company, its affiliates and its officers and directors intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with its current executive officers and directors and has certain obligations to indemnify its current directors and executive officers. As a result, the Company is currently incurring legal fees on behalf of these persons in relation to these pending and unresolved matters. On November 7, 2023, we were reimbursed by our director and officer insurance carrier a total of $3.5 million, which includes, among others, certain expenses paid from the proceeds under the HH-BDH Credit Agreement. Additional reimbursements from our director and officer insurance carrier are expected.

This litigation can subject us and certain of our directors 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 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.

In addition, from time to time, we may be subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. Regardless of the outcome of such ordinary course of business legal proceedings, such litigation can have a material adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. For more information, see the section titled “—Risk Factors.”

A description of the legal proceedings can also be found in Note 20, Commitments and Contingencies, to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 of Part II of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.