Beneficient

There have been no material changes in the legal proceedings previously disclosed in response to Part I, Item 3. “Legal Proceedings” set forth in our 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.

On July 29, 2024, the Texas District Court entered an order vacating the previously disclosed arbitration award against the Company in the aggregate amount of approximately $55.3 million in compensatory damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgement interest. As previously disclosed, on December 16, 2022, a former member (the “Claimant”) of the board of directors of Beneficient Management, L.L.C. 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. 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 and post-judgement interest (the “Arbitration Award”). The order vacated the Arbitration Award in its entirety. The Company was also asked to pay arbitration-related costs in the amount of approximately $0.1 million.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against Ben, certain members of its board of directors (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG Holdings (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO Technologies Inc. (“FOXO”), and Emerson Equity LLC (“Emerson”) (the “Scura Action”). The suit alleged that the defendants defrauded GWG Holdings’ investors, and it asserted claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG Holdings’ L Bonds or preferred stock of GWG Holdings between December 23, 2017, and April 20, 2022. The suit alleged that (i) BCG, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and (iii) that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. The complaint did not allege the total amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs. On June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Scura Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice.

On October 27, 2023, David Scura filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against Brad K. Heppner, Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, the Company and FOXO, alleging violation of the Texas Securities Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to defraud and seeking compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The same day, Clifford Day and Carla Monahan filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against the same defendants, alleging the same claims. 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.

On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the Lead Plaintiffs in the Bayati Action (the “Lead Plaintiffs”), 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, Murray T. Holland, Timothy L. Evans, David H. de Weese, Roy W. Bailey, David F. Chavenson, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and further alleges that the Company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer (the “Ben Individual Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants Murray Holland, Tim Evans, Roy Bailey, 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.

On December 6, 2024, Young Women’s Christian Association of Rochester and Monroe County (“YWCA”) filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Hatteras Funds, LP and Hatteras Investment Partners, LP (together, “HIP”); Hatteras Master Fund, L.P. and Hatteras Core Alternatives TEI Institutional Fund (the “TEI Institutional Fund,” and together with Hatteras Master Fund, L.P., the “Funds”); various current or former officers and directors of the Funds (David B. Perkins, H. Alexander Holmes, Steven E. Moss, Gregory S. Sellers, and Thomas Mann) (collectively, the “Director Defendants,” and together with HIP, the “Hatteras Defendants”); and Beneficient and Bradley K. Heppner (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.

On January 10, 2025, the Hatteras Defendants and Mr. Perkins filed a Notice of Removal, removing the action to the United States District Court of the District of Delaware (the “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.

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.