Beneficient
For the period ended Dec 31, 2024. Filed Feb 14, 2025.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Dec 31, 2024 · Filed Feb 14, 2025
BENF$0.71+2.3%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-Q
Period ended 2024-09-30; filed 2024-11-14.
0001775734-24-000074
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-Q
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-02-14.
0001775734-25-000010
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 40 previous paragraphs and 58 current paragraphs.
24 unchanged; 13 reworded; 19 added; 1 removed; 2 previous and 2 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 0 previous and 0 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
The current filing states there were no material changes to risk factors.
This is the filer’s own statement, not a conclusion from the comparison. Read its qualifications and the report it references.
Current filing’s statement
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.
Added paragraphs (19)
Current report
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. On August 30, 2024, the Company timely submitted a plan to regain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. On November 25, 2024, Company received a letter from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC confirming that the Company had regained compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement, after giving pro forma effect to the (i) redesignation of approximately $35 million of BCH Preferred Series A Subclass 0 Unit Accounts into non-redeemable BCH Preferred Series A Subclass 0 Unit Accounts and (ii) the Company’s sale of 3,274,000 shares of its Class A common stock to Yorkville on November 15, 2024, for aggregate consideration of approximately $5.1 million, pursuant to the SEPA, which resulted in pro forma stockholders’ equity of $26.9 million as of September 30, 2024. However, if the Company fails to evidence compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement upon filing its next periodic report it may be subject to delisting. At that time, the Staff will provide written notification to the Company, which may then appeal Staff’s determination to a Nasdaq Hearings Panel. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q reports permanent equity amounts greater than the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement. The Stockholders’ Equity Notice had no immediate impact on the listing of the Class A common stock, which continues 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 report
25, 2024 until the receipt of the letter on November 25, 2024 confirming that compliance with audit committee composition requirements had been regained.
Current report
On January 13, 2025, we received a letter from the Nasdaq Staff notifying the Company that the Company had failed to comply with the Bid Price Requirement. This most recent notice has no effect at this time on the Class A Common Stock, which continues to trade on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “BENF”.
Current report
In accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until July 14, 2025 (the “Compliance Date”), to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement. If, at any time before the Compliance Date, the bid price for the Class A Common Stock closes at $1.00 or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, the Staff will provide written notification to the Company that it has regained compliance with the Bid Price Requirement (unless the Staff exercises its discretion to extend the 10-day period).
Current report
If the Company is not in compliance with the Bid Price Requirement by the Compliance Date, 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 be required to meet the continued listing requirement for market value of publicly held shares and all other initial listing standards for The Nasdaq Capital Market, with the exception of the Bid Price Requirement, and would need to provide written notice to the Staff of its intention to cure the deficiency during the second compliance period, by effecting a reverse stock split, if necessary. If the Company does not qualify for or fails to regain compliance during the second compliance period, then the 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 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.
Current report
The Company intends to monitor the closing bid price of its Class A Common Stock and 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.
Current report
On April 19, 2024, the Litigation Trustee filed a complaint (the “LT Complaint”) as an Adversary Proceeding in the bankruptcy of GWG Holdings, Inc. currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas against Ben Management, the Company, BCH, Beneficient Capital Company II, L.L.C., f/k/a Beneficient Capital Company, L.L.C. (together with New BCC, defined herein, “BCC”), Beneficient Capital Company, L.L.C. (“New BCC”), Beneficient Holdings, Inc. (“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.
Current report
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 void the debts owed by the Company to HCLP. The LT Complaint seeks to, among other things, void 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.
Current report
On August 29, 2024, the Company and related entities moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them. Ben’s CEO and related entities also moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them on November 4, 2024. The motions remain pending. On December 26, 2024, the Litigation Trustee, the Company, its affiliates and officers and directors, and other defendants insured under the applicable insurance policies filed a stipulation informing the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. The Litigation Trustee has not yet filed a motion for court approval of the settlement. The settlement in principle does not require any payment by the Company or its affiliates and officers and directors and would resolve both the Adversary Proceeding and the securities class action described below. If the settlement is not approved, the Company, its affiliates and its officers and directors intend to vigorously defend themselves against these claims.
Current report
The terms of the proposed settlement in principle would be within the policy limits of the Company’s insurance policy with respect to such claims, and the Company expects the settlement will be entirely funded by insurance proceeds. The Company therefore does not believe any losses associated with the settlement would have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or cash flows in future periods. Accordingly, the Company has recorded an estimated liability of $34.5 million in accounts payable and accrued expenses and estimated insurance recoveries of $34.5 million in other assets, net, in the consolidated statement of financial condition as of December 31, 2024. The amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements for the estimated liability and insurance recoveries represents an estimate of the amounts attributable to Ben, its consolidated subsidiaries, and directors as part of a broader proposed settlement in principle also involving other parties.
Current report
The Company owes indemnification obligations pursuant to certain existing contracts, including to certain parties included in the LT Complaint that are not parties to the settlement in principle described above. The Company is required to indemnify these parties for losses they incur in connection with the LT Complaint, including for their defense of the LT Complaint and any judgment entered against them in the LT Complaint.
Current report
On December 6, 2024, YWCA filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against HIP, the Funds, the Hatteras Defendants, and the Ben Defendants. YWCA, as a unitholder of the TEI Institutional Fund, asserts claims against the Hatteras Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment arising from a plan to liquidate the Funds that involved a transaction with the Company. YWCA also asserts claims against the Ben Defendants for fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment in connection with this transaction.
Current report
On January 10, 2025, the Hatteras Defendants and Mr. Perkins filed a Notice of Removal, removing the action to District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), which provides for federal jurisdiction over certain class action lawsuits. On January 28, 2025, YWCA filed an amended complaint, which continues to assert the derivative claims asserted in its original complaint (Counts I-VII) but no longer asserts the class action claim (formerly Count VIII). As a result, the parties entered into a stipulation remanding the case to the Court of Chancery for all further proceedings, which was entered by the District Court on February 5, 2025. On February 6, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Setting Time to Respond to Amended Complaint in the Court of Chancery, which provides that the deadline for defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is March 3, 2025. The Company and Mr. Heppner intend to vigorously defend against these claims.
Current report
The settlement in principle of the LT Complaint utilizes substantially all of the amount of insurance coverage available to the Company on certain continuing legal matters. Therefore, ongoing defense costs and, to the extent there are any, awards against the Company associated with these legal matters will be borne by the Company. Prior to the settlement in principle of the LT Complaint, the substantial majority of the defense costs related to these certain continuing legal matters, were covered under the terms of our directors and officers insurance policies.
Current report
The closing of our pending acquisition of Mercantile Bank International, Corp. (“MBI”) is subject to various risks and uncertainties, and following closing, our operation of MBI will subject us to new regulatory requirements and operational risks.
Current report
We have entered into an agreement to acquire MBI, an International Financial Entity (“IFE”) regulated by the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico (“OCFI”). The closing of this acquisition is subject to various closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory approval from OCFI. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the required regulatory approval in a timely manner or at all. OCFI may deny the required approval, impose burdensome conditions on its approval, or delay its decision beyond our expected timeline. Any such denial, delay, or imposition of conditions could prevent the closing of this acquisition or materially impact the expected benefits. If we are unable to complete this acquisition, we will have incurred significant transaction-related expenses and devoted substantial management time and resources without realizing its anticipated benefits.
Current report
If we consummate the acquisition, we will be subject to a complex regulatory framework administered by OCFI and will need to comply with various laws, regulations, and supervisory requirements applicable to IFEs operating in Puerto Rico. We have no prior experience operating an IFE or being regulated by OCFI. Our inexperience in complying with the applicable regulatory requirements could result in inadvertent violations, regulatory enforcement actions, fines, penalties, or restrictions on our operations. Additionally, changes in laws, regulations, or OCFI’s interpretations or enforcement priorities could increase our compliance costs or restrict our ability to operate the IFE as planned.
Current report
The operation of an IFE will require us to implement new systems, processes, and controls, hire and retain qualified personnel with relevant expertise, and make significant investments in compliance infrastructure. We may experience difficulties or delays in implementing these operational requirements, which could adversely impact the IFE’s performance or result in regulatory compliance deficiencies. Furthermore, the integration of the IFE’s operations with our existing business may be more complex, time-consuming, or costly than anticipated, which could divert management attention and resources from other business objectives. These risks, individually or in combination, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and growth prospects.
Current report
The success of the MBI acquisition will depend, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from acquiring MBI. The anticipated benefits and estimates of future growth and synergies of the MBI acquisition may not be realized fully or at all, may take longer to realize than expected, or could have other adverse effects that we do not currently foresee. The failure to realize the anticipated benefits and synergies expected from the MBI acquisition could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.
Removed paragraphs (1)
Previous report
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.
Reworded paragraphs (13)
Previous wording
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.
Current wording
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).
Previous 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
Current wording
Although the Company intends to use all reasonable efforts to maintain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to maintain compliance with the Minimum Stockholders’ Equity Requirement or that the Company will otherwise be in compliance with other applicable Nasdaq listing criteria in the future.
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”). 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.
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”), 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
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..
Current wording
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 relied 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.
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
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 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.
Previous wording
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.
Current wording
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.
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. 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.
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 Claimant filed his opening brief on October 28, 2024, and the Company filed its response brief on January 21, 2025. On February 10, 2025, the Claimant filed his reply brief. The Texas Fifth Court of Appeals has not yet determined whether oral arguments will be granted in the case or a specific timeline for making its final decision. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in connection with the appeal.
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
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 alleged that the defendants defrauded GWG investors in connection with the sale of GWG’s L Bonds and preferred stock, and it asserted 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 alleged 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.
Previous wording
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.
Current wording
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. On October 24, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the claims without prejudice. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 14, 2024. On December 26, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff, the Company, and other defendants filed a motion informing the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. The Lead Plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for preliminary approval. The settlement in principle does not require any payment by the Company or its affiliates and officers and directors, and it would resolve both the Adversary Proceeding referenced above and the securities class action. If the settlement is not approved, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.
Previous wording
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.
Current wording
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. 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 plaintiffs re-filed their claims in Dallas County District Court on November 22, 2024. On January 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed notices informing the court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims and anticipate dismissing the cases following the settlement documentation process. The settlement in principle does not require any payment by the Company or the other defendants. If the settlement is not consummated, the Company and its officers and directors intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.
Previous wording
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.
Current wording
This litigation (and related litigation against other parties that is not part of the pending settlement) 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.
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 (“Dow Jones”). On November 6, 2024, Dow Jones filed a motion to dismiss. The Company is currently preparing a response to such motion.
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. On January 17, 2025, the Company entered into a binding agreement to settle all claims against Mr. Gladstone and Dow Jones. The Company determined to enter into the agreement to eliminate ongoing costs and distractions associated with the litigation.
Previous wording
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.
Current wording
We may continue to experience negative attention in the media. 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.
Rearranged current paragraphs (2)
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
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.
Current report — wording carried from elsewhere
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. On November 21, 2024, Karen J. Wendel was appointed to the Board as an independent director and member of the Audit committee of the Board. On November 25, 2024, the Company received a letter from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC confirming that, following the appointment of Ms. Wendel to the Board and the Audit committee, the Company had regained compliance with the audit committee composition requirements set forth in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605. The Audit Committee Notice had no immediate impact on the listing of the Class A common stock, which continued to be listed and traded on Nasdaq under the symbol “BENF,” during the period from the receipt of the Audit Committee Notice on July
Rearranged previous paragraphs (2)
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
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.
Previous report — wording carried elsewhere
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.