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, 2024 filed with the SEC on July 9, 2024, except as set forth below.

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 Capital 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 300 round lot holders and at least 500,000 publicly held shares, that the market value of our publicly held securities be at least $1 million, and that we meet one of these standards: stockholders’ equity of at least $2.5 million; market value of listed securities of at least $35 million; or net income from continuing operations of $500,000 in the latest fiscal year or in two of the last fiscal years.

On November 28, 2023, we received a letter from the Staff 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”). In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company was provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until May 28, 2024, to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement.

Effective February 26, 2024, the Company transferred from the Nasdaq Global Market to the Nasdaq Capital Market. On March 22, 2024, the Company received a letter from Nasdaq advising that the Nasdaq Staff had determined that, as of March 21, 2024, the Company’s Class A common stock had a closing bid price of $0.10 or less for at least ten consecutive trading days. Accordingly, the Company was subject to the provisions contemplated under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(iii). As a result, the Nasdaq Staff determined to delist the Company’s securities from The Nasdaq Capital Market, unless the Company timely requests a hearing before the Nasdaq Hearings Panel (the “Panel”) pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5800 Series. The Company requested a hearing, and such hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2024.

In order to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement, on April 18, 2024, the Company effected a reverse stock split of its Class A common stock and Class B common stock at a ratio of eighty (80) to one (1) and a simultaneous proportionate reduction in the authorized shares of each class of its Class A common stock and Class B common stock as required by NRS Section 78.207. On May 2, 2024, the Company received noticed from the Nasdaq Staff that the Company had regained compliance with the Bid Price Requirement, and that therefore, the Company was therefore in compliance with the listing requirements of the Nasdaq Capital Market. As a result, the Company’s hearing before the Panel was cancelled.

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.

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.

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

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.

On July 25, 2024, the Company received a notice from Nasdaq (the “Audit Committee Notice”) confirming that the Company was no longer in compliance with Nasdaq’s audit committee composition requirements as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605, which requires that the audit committee of a listed company be comprised of at least three “independent directors” (as defined in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(a)(2)). Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(c)(4), the Company intends to rely on the cure period to reestablish compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605. The cure period is generally defined as until the earlier of the Company’s next annual meeting of stockholders or July 21, 2025. If the Company’s next annual meeting of stockholders is held before January 15, 2025, then the Company must evidence compliance no later than January 15, 2025. The Board is in the process of identifying and selecting a new member of the Board who qualifies as “independent” and meets the audit committee criteria set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605. The Board intends to comply fully with Nasdaq audit committee requirements by or before the end of the cure period described above, but there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to regain compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605 or that the Company will otherwise be in compliance with other applicable Nasdaq listing criteria. The Audit Committee 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..

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.

Decisions made by an individual trustee could materially affect our custody business and the assets held in certain of our trusts.

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.

Accordingly, decisions made by BFF could materially affect our business and the assets held in such trusts. It is impossible to determine how these decisions may affect the value of the Company and therefore our securities.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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 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 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 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.

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. 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.

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 our Annual Report on Form 10-K.