Beneficient

On February 18, 2022, Shirin Bayati and Mojan Kamalvand, on behalf of themselves and of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against GWG Holdings, Inc., its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Holland, its former Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Evans, and certain past and present members of the board of directors of GWG and Ben (Roy Bailey, Peter Cangany, Jr., David Chavenson, Brad Heppner, Thomas Hicks, Dennis Lockhart, Bruce Schnitzer, and David DeWeese) (the “Bayati Action”).

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially misleading statements in a June 3, 2020 registration statement. On April 20, 2022, GWG filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. On April 21, 2022, the district court ordered all parties to submit statements by May 5, 2022 on whether the automatic stay in bankruptcy extends to the non-debtor defendants. On April 25, 2022, Movants Thomas Horton and Frank Moore filed a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Their Selection of Lead Counsel. On May 2, 2022, a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was filed, dismissing defendants Peter Cangany, Jr., Brad Heppner, Thomas Hicks, Dennis Lockhart, and Bruce Schnitzer. On May 12, 2022, the district court extended the bankruptcy stay to all non-debtor defendants, although it permitted a limited modification or lifting of the stay to allow the court to consider the pending lead plaintiff motion. On June 1, 2022, the bankruptcy court entered an order modifying the automatic stay in order to allow the Court to appoint lead plaintiffs. The next day, the Court lifted the stay in accordance with the bankruptcy court order. On August 5, 2022, the district court entered an order appointing Thomas Horton and Frank Moore as lead plaintiffs for the putative class. On May 26, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a second class action lawsuit against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering (the “Horton Action”).

On August 16, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the Lead Plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a notice regarding the confirmation of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 plan in the GWG bankruptcy, a motion seeking to lift the bankruptcy stay and a motion to consolidate the Bayati and Horton Actions. On September 12, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the Bayati and Horton Actions. The court ordered that the consolidated action shall bear the caption In re GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court lifted the bankruptcy stay and ordered the Lead Plaintiffs to file a new consolidated complaint within 20 days.

On October 2, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against the Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, Murray T. Holland, Timothy L. Evans, David H. de Weese, Roy W. Bailey, David F. Chavenson, and Whitley Penn LLP, alleging Securities Act violations arising out of the Offering. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and further alleges that the Company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. The Company, Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer (the “Ben Individual Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2023. On January 4, 2024, defendants Murray Holland, Roy Bailey, Tim Evans, Whitley Penn, David Chavenson and David H. de Weese filed motions to dismiss. The Lead Plaintiffs’ responded to the various motions to dismiss on February 20, 2024, and the defendants (other than Whitley Penn) filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss on March 21, 2024. 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 settlement did not require any payment by the Company or its affiliates and officers and directors. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval and, on September 25, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. At a hearing on January 13, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted final approval of the settlement and dismissed the Bayati Action with prejudice. Following this approval, the settlement by its terms became effective as of February 13. 2026. As a result of this approval, all the GWG litigation against the Company, its subsidiaries and each of their current and former officers and directors has been fully resolved in accordance with the settlement agreement.

On February 18, 2022, Paul Capital Advisors filed a lawsuit against MHT Financial, L.L.C., BCG, and two Trust Advisors, Murray Holland (part-owner of MHT and former Chairman, President and CEO of GWG) and James Turvey (a former employee of BCG). While BCG was named as a defendant, PCA did not assert claims against or seek relief from BCG but instead only sought the removal and replacement of the Trust Advisors. The lawsuit concerns a series of transactions that utilized a trust structure with MHT as the sole beneficiary. Through this trust structure, PCA sold illiquid investments with a net asset value of approximately $500 million to MHT and certain trusts (the “Trusts”) in exchange for a contractual right from MHT to receive proceeds derived from an auction of BCG securities held in the Trusts. Ultimately, GWG won with a winning bid comprised of cash, GWG common stock, and GWG L-Bonds. While the cash consideration has been paid to PCA, the GWG stock and GWG L-Bonds remain in the Trusts until they are liquidated. The original complaint asserted one cause of action: that the Trust Advisors had breached their purported fiduciary duties to PCA. The sole relief PCA sought was the removal and replacement of the Trust Advisors. On March 14, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint, disputing in their briefs filed March 28, 2022 that PCA is a beneficiary of any kind to the Trusts and therefore not owed fiduciary duties by the Trust Advisors, and that PCA has no right to remove and replace the Trust Advisors. Further, BCG sought to dismiss the original complaint on the grounds that no claims were asserted against BCG and no relief was sought from it.

On April 18, 2022, PCA amended its original complaint. The amended complaint asserted six new causes of action arising out of the same series of transactions, including: (1) purported breaches of contract against BCG, MHT, and the Trust Advisors; (2) purported fraud by BCG and MHT pertaining to the execution of the Second Amendment to the CVR Contract; and (3) promissory estoppel against MHT, BCG, and the Trust Advisors. The amended complaint also sought additional relief in the form of (1) damages “in an amount to be proven at trial” and (2) an order granting rescission of an amendment to one of the transaction agreements or a holding declaring it invalid.

On April 18, 2022, Mr. Holland and Mr. Turvey resigned as Trust Advisors to the Trusts that were the subject matter of the complaint.

On April 19, 2022, MHT, as the sole beneficiary of the Trusts, appointed Dr. John Stahl as the new Trust Advisor.

On April 28, 2022, the Court found that PCA’s original cause of action to remove Mr. Holland and Mr. Turvey as Trust Advisors was moot.

On May 6, 2022, PCA amended its complaint to request that Dr. Stahl be removed as Trust Advisor.

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

On October 3, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing count I of PCA’s complaint in accordance with its memorandum opinion and count II in light of the parties’ agreement that it should also be dismissed.

On November 1, 2022, defendants filed their opening briefs in support of their motions to dismiss the remaining counts. On December 20, 2022, PCA filed its answering brief in opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss the remaining counts. On January 24, 2023, defendants filed their reply briefs. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on May 8, 2023, and the Court took the matter under advisement.

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

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

On December 16, 2022, 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 previous Arbitration Award against the Company in the aggregate amount of approximately $55.3 million in compensatory damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment 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 heard oral arguments in April 2025. On October 10, 2025, the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Texas District Court and confirmed the previous Arbitration Award. On November 12, 2025, the Company filed a motion for re-hearing with the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals. On May 13, 2026, the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals denied the Company’s motion for re-hearing. On June 4, 2026, the Company filed a petition for review with the

Supreme Court of Texas requesting that it reverse the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals’ ruling and reinstate the trial court’s decision to vacate the arbitration award. In the Texas District Court, on April 20, 2026, the Company was ordered to post a bond of not less than $25 million as security to protect the judgment pending appeal. On April 30, 2026, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Stay challenging the bond order. On June 18, 2026, the Company filed a Sworn Declaration establishing that the aggregate current net worth under U.S. GAAP of the defendant entities as determined under Texas law is negative. On June 22, 2026, consistent with the Sworn Declaration, the Company deposited a $100 cash bond in lieu of a supersedeas bond pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.2(a)(1) and Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 52.006. The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter and we are exploring available options with respect to the Arbitration Award, which may include working with the Claimant on settlement terms that could reduce the potential near term cash obligations associated with the arbitration. There can be no assurance that we will be able to reach a settlement on terms that are favorable to us or at all.

Furthermore, on March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas against Ben, certain current and former members of its board of directors (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of GWG (Jon R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO and Emerson. The suit alleges that the defendants defrauded GWG investors in connection with the sale of GWG’s L Bonds and preferred stock, and it asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG’s L Bonds or preferred stock of GWG between December 23, 2017 and April 20, 2022. The suit alleges that (i) BCG, the individual defendants, and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and (iii) that Emerson violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act. On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities as the lead plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate the Bayati and Scura Actions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Scura Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice.

On October 27, 2023, David Scura filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against Brad K. Heppner, Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, Peter T. Cangany, Jr., Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, Bruce W. Schnitzer, the Company and FOXO Technologies, Inc. (“FOXO”), alleging violation of the Texas Securities Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy to defraud and seeking compensatory damages, costs and expenses. The same day, Clifford Day and Carla Monahan filed a petition in Dallas County District Court against the same defendants, alleging the same claims. The parties agreed to move the defendants’ deadline to respond to the petition to February 19, 2024. On April 10, 2024, the plaintiffs and Ben parties entered into a twelve-month tolling agreement, and the plaintiffs filed motions to nonsuit their claims that the courts granted on April 12, 2024 and April 16, 2024, respectively. The 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. The parties entered into a settlement agreement on July 28, 2025, pursuant to which the Plaintiffs filed a notice of nonsuit with prejudice on August 22, 2025, which was effective immediately upon filing.

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

On April 19, 2024, the Litigation Trustee filed the LT Complaint as an Adversary Proceeding in the bankruptcy of GWG in the Bankruptcy Court against Ben Management, the Company, BCH, BCC, New BCC, BHI, various current or former officers and directors of the Company, HCLP and certain of its affiliates, former officers and directors of the Company’s former parent company, trustees of certain trusts that are directly or indirectly controlled by, or operate for the benefit of, Ben’s former 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 former CEO and his family members are among classes of economic beneficiaries, whether or not Ben’s former CEO is entitled to economic distributions from such trusts, and others. The LT Complaint alleged 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 related 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 sought to avoid the debts owed by the Company to HCLP. The LT Complaint sought to, among other things, avoid certain of the transactions and/or recover damages, attorney’s fees and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The LT Complaint does not purport to estimate the damages sought.

On August 29, 2024, the Company and related entities moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them. Ben’s former 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 as to related entities to Ben’s former CEO. 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. On June 13, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement agreement resolving all claims pending in the Bankruptcy Court under the lawsuits related to GWG Holdings, Inc. against the Company, its subsidiaries, and each of their current and former directors and officers. The settlement did not require any payment by the Company or its affiliates and officers and directors and resolves the Adversary Proceeding as to the Company, its subsidiaries, and each of their current and former directors and officers. The securities class action described below was also resolved by this settlement. On September 25, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. At a hearing on January 13, 2026, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted final approval of the settlement. Following this approval, the settlement by its terms became effective as of February 13, 2026. On February 13, 2026, all claims in the LT Complaint against the Company, its subsidiaries, and each of their current and former directors and officers were dismissed with prejudice. All the GWG litigation against the Company, its subsidiaries and each of their current and former officers and directors has been fully resolved in accordance with the settlement agreement.

On June 15, 2026, the litigation trustee filed a motion to approve an amended settlement agreement between the litigation trustee and the Company that would ensure any recoveries against Mr. Heppner by either party will go to the Litigation Trust. The amended agreement also sets forth a cooperative framework between the litigation trustee and the Company in pursuing claims against Mr. Heppner, including shared legal counsel.

The terms of the settlement are within the policy limits of the Company’s insurance policy with respect to such claims, and the settlement was entirely funded by insurance proceeds. 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 March 31, 2025. 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 settlement also involving other parties. With the final approvals occurring in February 2026, the settlement was paid under the insurance policy to the Litigation Trust resulting in the removal of the $34.5 million estimated liability and $34.5 million of insurance recoveries from our consolidated financial statements that were previously accrued.

The settlement of the LT Complaint and the Bayati Action 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 of the LT Complaint and the Bayati Action, 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.

This litigation (and related litigation against other parties that is not part of the settlement) can subject us and certain of our directors to substantial costs and divert resources and the attention of management from our business. If these claims are successful, our business could be seriously harmed. Even if the claims do not result in protracted litigation or are resolved in our favor and the favor of our directors, the time and resources needed to resolve such claims could divert our management’s resources and adversely affect our business.

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 (i) as nominal defendants, Hatteras Core Alternatives TEI Institutional Fund, L.P. (the “TEI Institutional Fund”) and Hatteras Master Fund, L.P (together with TEI Institutional Fund, the “Funds”); and (ii) as defendants, Hatteras Investment Partners, LP, formerly known as Hatteras Funds, LP, (“HIP”), the members of the Funds’ board of directors (the “Director Defendants,” and together with HIP, the “Hatteras Defendants”), the Company, and Brad Heppner (“Mr. Heppner,” and together with Ben, 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 filed a Notice of Removal, removing the action to the United States District Court of the District of Delaware 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.

On March 3, 2025, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 18, 2025, YWCA filed its opposition to the motions to dismiss, and on May 12, 2025, Defendants filed their replies. On December 5, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed the fraud claim against the Company from the bench and took the aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment claims under advisement. On May 4, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court denied the Hatteras Defendants’ application for interlocutory appeal. On May 29, 2026, the Company filed its answer to the amended complaint. On June 17, 2026, the Hatteras Defendants and Mr. Perkins filed a third-party complaint against Mr. Heppner. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims.

On May 16, 2025, Susan J. Templeton Revocable Trust (“Templeton Trust”) filed a derivative complaint in in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Hatteras Investment Partners, LP, formerly known as Hatteras Funds, LP, (“HIP”), David B. Perkins (Mr. Perkins, together with HIP, the “Hatteras Templeton Defendants”), the Company, and Brad Heppner (“Mr. Heppner,” together with Ben, the “Ben Templeton Defendants”). Templeton Trust, as a unit holder of nominal defendant Hatteras Evergreen Private Equity Fund, LLC (the “Fund”), asserts the following claims arising from a plan to liquidate the Fund that involved a transaction with the Company: (i) direct and derivative claims against the Hatteras Templeton Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) derivative claims against HIP and the Ben Templeton Defendants for unjust enrichment, and a derivative claim against the Ben Templeton Defendants for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On June 18, 2025, the Ben Templeton Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Mr. Heppner and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion to dismiss has not been briefed by the Ben Templeton Defendants. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

On March 17, 2025, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (“Lazard”) filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company breached the terms of its previous contract with Lazard by failing to timely pay amounts owed thereunder. Lazard seeks damages in the amount of approximately $4.5 million in addition to costs, attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest. In June 2025, the Company reached a settlement with Lazard for payment of approximately $2.5 million based on a payment schedule outlined in the settlement agreement. During the current period, the Company completed the payments outlined in the settlement agreement and released the additional accrual of $2.0 million, which is reflected in the (gain) loss on liability resolution line of the consolidated statements of comprehensive income.

On August 5, 2025, HCLP filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York seeking a judgment against the Company for amounts owed under the HCLP Loan Agreement in addition to attorney’s fees and litigation costs. The summons with notice did not include a complaint and has not been served on the Company. No action is required by the Company until it has been served. In light of these circumstances, the Company is evaluating the validity of its obligations under the HCLP Loan Agreement and the liens securing the HCLP Loan and is considering all options that it may pursue related to this conduct, including counter claims and litigation against Mr. Heppner, HCLP and any direct or indirect control parties of HCLP. The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims regarding the validity of such purported indebtedness.

On October 10, 2025, HCLP brought an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against DTC individually and as trustee for the Custody Trusts. The Custody Trusts hold collateral against which certain of the Company’s ExAlt Loans are made. HCLP purports to be lender to BCH and its affiliates and asserts, at the time of the action, that the Company owes HCLP approximately $122 million on two loans, which it claims are in default. HCLP further alleges that the Custody Trusts guaranteed the loans that are secured by certain pledge agreements. The action seeks to enforce the guarantees and the pledge agreements and prevent any future distributions to the Company. HCLP also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that seeks to enjoin DTC, in the interim, from selling, transferring, or encumbering the assets held by the Custody Trusts. The parties entered into an agreed form of order which was approved by the Court. Under the order, DTC agreed to not transfer, sell, encumber or otherwise dispose of the collateral held by the Custody Trusts, which includes any distributions received from the collateral during the pendency of the order, and the parties to the action agreed to request a trial date in mid-2026. On November 21, 2025, the parties stipulated to a form of order that was approved by the Court, which stayed all proceedings until the conclusion of Mr. Heppner’s criminal trial in April 2026. The Company is not named in either the action or the motion. Due to Mr. Heppner’s conviction and the facts established in the related proceedings, the Company is evaluating the validity of its obligations under the HCLP Loan Agreement and the liens securing the HCLP Loan and is considering all options that it may pursue related to this conduct, including litigation against Mr. Heppner, HCLP and any direct or indirect control parties of HCLP and their agents.

On May 7, 2026, Brad K. Heppner, the Company’s founder and former CEO, was convicted of securities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, and false statements to auditors by a jury of his peers. Prior to his conviction, on May 5, 2026, Mr. Heppner submitted a demand to the Company seeking advancement of approximately $3.8 million in incurred criminal defense costs, plus additional amounts for anticipated future appellate proceedings, under certain indemnification provisions in the Company’s Bylaws, the Services Agreement, the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of BCG, and the Ninth A&R BCH LPA.

On May 28, 2026, the Company, together with its subsidiaries BCG and BCH, filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada against Mr. Heppner and Bradley Capital Company, LLC. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Mr. Heppner is not entitled to advancement or indemnification under the Company’s Bylaws or the Services Agreement, and that BCG and BCH have no obligation to advance Mr. Heppner’s legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with his criminal prosecution in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 5, 2026, Mr. Heppner filed a competing lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against the Company, BCG, and BCH seeking advancement of Mr. Heppner’s legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with his criminal prosecution, attorney’s fees incurred in pursuing his advancement claim, and additional relief.

The Company intends to vigorously pursue its claims for declaratory relief in the Nevada lawsuit, and to vigorously defend against Mr. Heppner’s claims in the Delaware lawsuit.

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

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