Beneficient

Previous wording

Nasdaq Capital Market pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) (the “Stockholders’ Equity Notice”). Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) requires listed companies to maintain stockholders’ equity of at least $2,500,000 or meet the alternative compliance standards relating to the market value of listed securities or net income from continuing operations, which the Company does not currently meet.

Current wording

On July 16, 2024, the Company received a notice from the Nasdaq staff indicating that it is no longer in compliance with the minimum stockholders’ equity requirement (the “Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement”) for continued listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) (the “Stockholders’ Equity Notice”). Nasdaq Listing Rule 5550(b)(1) requires listed companies to maintain stockholders’ equity of at least $2,500,000 or meet the alternative compliance standards relating to the market value of listed securities or net income from continuing operations, which the Company does not currently meet.

Previous wording

Pursuant to the Stockholders’ Equity Notice and the Listing Rules of Nasdaq, Nasdaq has provided the Company with 45 calendar days, or until August 30, 2024, to submit a plan to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. If the Company’s plan to regain compliance is accepted, the Staff can grant an extension of up to 180 calendar days from the date of the Stockholders’ Equity Notice to evidence compliance. If the Company’s plan to regain compliance is not accepted, or if it is accepted and the Company does not regain compliance in the timeframe required by Nasdaq, the Nasdaq Staff could provide notice that the Company’s shares of Class A common stock are subject to delisting. In such an event, the Company would have the right to request a hearing before the Panel. The hearing request would automatically stay any suspension or delisting action pending the completion of the hearings process. The Stockholders’ Equity Notice had no immediate impact on the listing of the Class A common stock, which will continue to be listed and traded on Nasdaq under the symbol “BENF,” subject to the Company’s compliance with the other listing requirements of Nasdaq.

Current wording

Pursuant to the Stockholders’ Equity Notice and the Listing Rules of Nasdaq, Nasdaq provided the Company with 45 calendar days, or until August 30, 2024, to submit a plan to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. If the Company’s plan to regain compliance is accepted, the Staff can grant an extension of up to 180 calendar days from the date of the Stockholders’ Equity Notice to evidence compliance. If the Company’s plan to regain compliance is not accepted, or if it is accepted and the Company does not regain compliance in the timeframe required by Nasdaq, the Nasdaq Staff could provide notice that the Company’s shares of Class A common stock are subject to delisting. In such an event, the Company would have the right to request a hearing before the Panel. The hearing request would automatically stay any suspension or delisting action pending the completion of the hearings process. The Stockholders’ Equity Notice had no immediate impact on the listing of the Class A common stock, which will continue to be listed and traded on Nasdaq under the symbol “BENF,” subject to the Company’s compliance with the other listing requirements of Nasdaq.

Previous wording

The Company is currently evaluating options to regain compliance and intends to timely submit a plan to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. Although the Company intends to use all reasonable efforts to achieve compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement or that the Company will otherwise be in compliance with other applicable Nasdaq listing criteria.

Current wording

The Company timely submitted a plan to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. Although the Company intends to use all reasonable efforts to achieve compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity

Previous wording

Additionally, on July 23, 2024, the Company notified Nasdaq that, following the resignations of Emily B. Hill and Dennis P. Lockhart from the Company’s Board and Audit Committee of the Board (the “Audit Committee”), the Company currently has a vacancy on the Audit Committee and intends to rely on the cure period set forth in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605 while it recruits a new Audit Committee member.

Current wording

Additionally, on July 23, 2024, the Company notified Nasdaq that, following the resignations of Emily B. Hill and Dennis P. Lockhart from the Company’s Board and Audit Committee of the Board (the “Audit Committee”). On September 30, 2024, Patrick J. Donegan was appointed to the Board as an independent director and a member of the Audit, Products and Related Party Transactions, Credit and Enterprise Risk committees of the Board. The Company currently has a vacancy on the Audit Committee and intends to rely on the cure period set forth in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605 while it recruits a new Audit Committee member.

Previous wording

Historically, we have been dependent upon the services of John Stahl, an individual who, prior to our receipt of the operating TEFFI charter in Kansas, served as trustee of most of our Customer ExAlt Trusts, excluding the custody trusts that are Delaware statutory trusts, which are trusts with the Delaware Trust Company serving as trustee. Mr. Stahl continued to serve as trustee of the Customer ExAlt Trusts established in our formative transactions until July 7, 2024, at which point BFF began the process of accepting such trusts as successor trustee. It is anticipated that BFF will complete the trust acceptance process in the near future, at which point it will serve as successor trustee of all of the Customer ExAlt Trusts. Previously, we replaced Mr. Stahl as trustee on certain other trusts, and BFF was appointed as trustee of the Customer ExAlt Trusts following the receipt of BFF’s TEFFI charter. Accordingly, BFF will be, subject to fiduciary duties and other restrictions included in our trust agreements and as a matter of law, as a trustee, BFF will have broad discretion and authority to take actions permitted by the trust agreements and applicable law.

Current wording

Historically, we have been dependent upon the services of John Stahl, an individual who, prior to our receipt of the operating TEFFI charter in Kansas, served as trustee of most of our Customer ExAlt Trusts, excluding the custody trusts that are Delaware statutory trusts, which are trusts with the Delaware Trust Company serving as trustee. Mr. Stahl continued to serve as trustee of the Customer ExAlt Trusts established in our formative transactions until July 7, 2024, at which point BFF began the process of accepting such trusts as successor trustee. BFF completed the trust acceptance process on September 19, 2024 and November 1, 2024 and, as such, currently serves as successor trustee of all of the Customer ExAlt Trusts, excluding the custody trusts that are Delaware statutory trusts, for which the Delaware Trust Company continues to serve as trustee. Previously, we replaced Mr. Stahl as trustee on certain other trusts, and BFF was appointed as trustee of the Customer ExAlt Trusts following the receipt of BFF’s TEFFI charter. Accordingly, BFF will be, subject to fiduciary duties and other restrictions included in our trust agreements and as a matter of law, as a trustee, BFF will have broad discretion and authority to take actions permitted by the trust agreements and applicable law.

Previous wording

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.

Current wording

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

Previous wording

Additionally, on December 16, 2022, the Claimant 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 $0.1 million. On July 29, 2024, the Texas District Court entered an order vacating the previously Arbitration Award against the Company in the aggregate amount of approximately $55.3 million in compensatory damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgement interest. The Texas District Court directed the parties to file motions requesting any further relief that may be available within twenty days of the order. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the event the Claimant seeks any additional relief in connection with the order.

Current wording

Additionally, on December 16, 2022, the Claimant 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 $0.1 million. On July 29, 2024, the Texas District Court entered an order vacating the previously Arbitration Award against the Company in the aggregate amount of approximately $55.3 million in compensatory damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgement interest. The Texas District Court directed the parties to file motions requesting any further relief that may be available within twenty days of the order. On August 2, 2024, the Claimant filed an appeal to challenge the order vacating the Arbitration Award in the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in connection with the appeal.

Previous wording

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

Current wording

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.

Previous wording

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.

Current wording

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

Previous wording

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. On July 28, 2023, we and certain of our executive officers filed a claim for defamation against Alexander Gladstone, the author of the Wall Street Journal’s previous media coverage concerning the Company. On May 22, 2024, the court in this case denied Mr. Gladstone’s motion to dismiss, allowing our claims to proceed. Mr. Gladstone filed an answer on June 19, 2024, and a trial has been set for March 2026. On July 26, 2024, defamation claims relating to the article authored by Gladstone were filed against Dow Jones & Co. Inc., the Wall Street Journal’s publisher. The parties are currently discussing when and how discovery should proceed given the new claims.

Current wording

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. On July 28, 2023, we and certain of our executive officers filed a claim for defamation against Alexander Gladstone, the author of the Wall Street Journal’s previous media coverage concerning the Company. On May 22, 2024, the court in this case denied Mr. Gladstone’s motion to dismiss, allowing our claims to proceed. Mr. Gladstone filed an answer on June 19, 2024, and a trial has been set for March 2026. On July 26, 2024, defamation claims relating to the article authored by Gladstone were filed against Dow Jones & Co. Inc., the Wall Street Journal’s publisher (“Dow Jones”). On November 6, 2024, Dow Jones filed a motion to dismiss. The Company is currently preparing a response to such motion.