Abacus Life Inc

The following discussion of "Risk Factors" identifies factors that may adversely affect our business, operations, financial condition or future performance. This information should be read in conjunction with "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Result of Operations" and the consolidated financial statements and related notes. The following discussion of risks is not all-inclusive but is designed to highlight what we believe are the material factors to consider when evaluating our business and expectations. These factors could cause our future results to differ materially from our historical results and from expectations reflected in forward-looking statements.

Risks Related to the Business of the Company

The Company’s valuation of life insurance policies is uncertain as many life insurance policies’ values are tied to their actual maturity date and any erroneous valuations could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

The valuation of life insurance policies involves inherent uncertainty (including, without limitation, the life expectancies of insureds and future increases in premium costs to keep the policies in force). There is no guarantee that the value determined with respect to a particular life settlement policy by the Company will represent the value that will be realized by the Company on the eventual disposition of the related investment or that would, in fact, be realized upon an immediate disposition of the investment. In addition, there can be no guarantee that such valuation accurately reflects the current present value of such life insurance policy at its actual maturity. Uncertainties as to the valuation of life insurance policies held by the Company could require adjustments to reported net asset values and could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business. Uncertainties as to the valuation may also result in the Company being less competitive in the market for originating new life settlement policies and could adversely affect the profits the Company realizes on life settlements purchased and sold.

The Company could fail to accurately forecast life expectancies. There may also be changes to life expectancies generally, resulting in people living longer in the future, which could result in a lower return on the Company’s life settlement policies.

Prices for life insurance policies and annuities that may be obtained by the Company depend, in large measure, upon the life expectancy of the underlying insureds. The returns of the Company’s hold portfolio is almost entirely dependent upon how accurate the actual longevity of an insured is as compared to the Company’s expectation for that insured. Life expectancies are estimates of the expected longevity or mortality of an insured. In determining the life expectancy of an insured, the Company relies on medical underwriting conducted by various medical underwriting firms. The medical underwriting process underlying life expectancy estimates is highly subjective, and mortality and longevity estimates are inherently uncertain. In addition, there can be no assurance that the applicable medical underwriting firm received accurate or complete information regarding the health of an insured under a life insurance policy, or that such insured’s health has not changed since the information was received. Different medical underwriting firms use different methods and may arrive at materially different mortality estimates for the same individual based on the same information, thus causing a life insurance policy’s value to vary. Moreover, as methods of calculating mortality estimates change over time, a mortality estimate prepared by any medical underwriting firm in connection with the acquisition of a life insurance policy may be different from a mortality estimate prepared by the same person at a later time. The valuation of the life insurance policies will vary depending on the dates of the related mortality estimates and the medical underwriting firms that provide the supporting information.

Other factors, including, but not limited to, better access to health care, better adherence to treatment plans, improved nutritional habits, improved lifestyle, an improved economic environment and a higher standard of living could also lead to increases in the longevity of the insureds under the life insurance policies. In addition to other factors affecting the accuracy of life expectancy estimates, improvements in medicine, disease treatment, pharmaceuticals and other medical and health services may enable insureds to live longer.

The actual longevity of an insured may be materially different than the predicted mortality estimate. If the actual maturity date of life insurance policies are longer than projected, it would delay when the Company could expect to receive a return on its investment and the Company may be unable to meet its investment objectives and goals. For example, a term life insurance policy in which the Company may invest have a stated expiration date on the date at which the underlying insured reaches a certain attained age and, beyond such date, the issuing insurance company may not be obligated to pay the face value, but rather only the cash surrender value which is usually maintained at a low value by investors, if any, in accordance with the terms of such life insurance policy. Therefore, if the underlying insured survives to the stated maturity date set forth in the terms of the life insurance policy, the issuing insurance company may only be obligated to pay an amount substantially less than the face value, which could have an adverse effect on the performance of the Company.

The medical underwriting and other firms that provide information for the Company’s forecasts of life expectancies are generally not regulated by the U.S. federal or state governments, with the exception of the states of Florida and Texas, which require life expectancy providers to register with their respective offices of insurance regulation. There can be no assurance that this business will not become more broadly regulated and, if so, that any such regulation would not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Company to establish appropriate life expectancies in connection with the purchase or sale of policies.

The Company’s policy acquisitions are limited by the market availability of life insurance policies that meet the Company’s eligibility criteria and purchase parameters, and failure to secure a sufficient number of quality life insurance policies could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

The life insurance policy secondary market has grown substantially in the past several years, however, as to whether and how it will continue to develop is uncertain. There are only a limited number of life insurance policies available in the market from time to time. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to source life insurance policies on terms acceptable to the Company. As more investment funds flow into the market for life insurance policies, margins may be squeezed and the value of the collateral may become comparatively more expensive to purchase or subject to greater competition on the purchase side. There can be no assurance that secondary market life insurance policies will be available to the Company on satisfactory or competitive terms.

The supply of life insurance policies available in the market may be reduced by, among other things: (i) improvement in the economy, resulting in higher investment returns to insureds and other owners of life insurance policies from their investment portfolios; (ii) improvements in health insurance coverage, limiting the need of insureds to obtain funds to pay the cost of their medical treatment by selling their life insurance policies; (iii) the entry into the market of less reputable third-party brokers who submit inaccurate or false life insurance policy information to the Company; (iv) the establishment of new licensing requirements for market participants and a delay in complying or an inability to comply with such new requirements; or (v) refusal of the carrier that issued a life insurance policy to consent to its transfer. A change in the availability of life insurance policies could adversely affect the Company’s ability to execute its strategy and meet its objectives.

The Company may experience increased competition from originating life insurance companies, life insurance brokers, and investment funds which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Life insurance companies have begun offering to repurchase their own in-force life insurance policies from their current policyholders by offering “enhanced cash surrender value payments” above the amount of the net cash surrender value provided under the life insurance contracts’ terms and thus compete directly with the Company and other life settlement providers. The life settlements industry has challenged the legal validity of the life insurance companies’ actions, and some state insurance regulators have declared that these repurchase offers are unlawful while other state insurance regulators have approved them. To the extent that life insurance companies can seek to repurchase their own in-force life insurance policies, they present competition to the Company in acquiring policies.

In addition, the Company is subject to significant competition from other life settlement brokers and investment funds for the purchase of life settlement policies. Increased competition for life settlement policies may result in the Company being unable to access the number of life settlement policies that it desires for its business at prices that it deems acceptable.

Historically, there has been a negative public perception of the life settlement industry that could affect the value and/or liquidity of the Company’s investments and the life settlement industry faces political opposition from life insurance companies which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Many regulators, lawmakers and other governmental authorities, as well as many insurance companies and insurance industry organizations, are hostile to or otherwise concerned about certain aspects of the longevity-contingent asset markets. The life settlement industry and some of its participants have also been, and may continue to be, portrayed negatively in a number of widely read publications and other forms of media. These opponents regularly contend that life settlement transactions are contrary to public policy by promoting financial speculation on human life and often involve elements of fraud and other wrongdoing. Continued public opposition to the life settlement industry, as well as actual or alleged wrongdoing by participants in the industry, could have a material adverse effect on the Company and its investors, including on the value and/or liquidity of the Company’s investments.

In March 2010, the American Council of Life Insurers, an insurance carrier trade association, issued a press release calling for a complete ban on life settlement securitization. While that effort was not successful, any such federal or state legislation, if passed, could have the effect of severely limiting or potentially prohibiting the continued operation of the Company’s life settlement purchasing operations. All of the foregoing could adversely affect the Company’s ability to execute its investment strategy and meet its investment objectives.

The Company or third parties the Company relies upon could fail to accurately evaluate, acquire, maintain, track, or collect on life settlement policies, which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s revenues.

The Company relies on third party data for tracking and servicing its life settlement policies. This includes the origination and servicing of life settlement policies by the servicing and tracking agent, market counterparties and other service providers, and the Company may not be in a position to verify the risks or reliability of such third-party data and systems. Failures in the systems employed by the Company and other service providers, counterparties, and other parties could result in mistakes made in the evaluation, acquisition, maintenance, tracking and collection of life settlement policies and other longevity-linked investments. This could result in the Company overpaying for life settlement policies it acquires or underpricing life settlement policies it sells. In addition, disruptions in the Company’s operations as a result of a failure in a third party system may cause the Company to suffer, among other things, financial loss, the disruption of its business, liability to third-parties, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. Any of the foregoing failures or disruptions could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

There is a risk of fraud in the origination of the original life insurance policy or in subsequent sales of the life insurance policy that could adversely affect the Company’s returns which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

The Company faces the risk that an original owner of a life insurance policy, the related insured, the insurance agent involved in the issuance of such life insurance policy, or other party may have committed fraud, or misstated or failed to provide material information in connection with the origination or subsequent sale of that life insurance policy. While most life insurance policies may not be challenged for fraud after the end of the two-year contestability period, there may be situations where such fraud in connection with the issuance of a life insurance policy may survive the contestability period. If an issuing insurance company successfully challenges a life insurance policy acquired by the Company on the grounds of fraud, the Company may lose its entire investment in that life insurance policy. Furthermore, if the age of an insured was misstated, the Company may receive lower death benefits than expected. In addition, there may be information directly relevant to the value of a life insurance policy, including, but not limited to, information relating to the insured’s medical or financial condition, to which the Company will not have access. It is not possible to verify the accuracy or completeness of each piece of information or the completeness of the overall information supplied by such parties. Any such misstatement or omission could cause the Company to rely on assumptions which turn out to be inaccurate. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the seller of a life insurance policy in the tertiary market properly acquired that policy from the former owner, or that a former beneficiary or other interested party will not attempt to challenge the validity of the transfer. The occurrence of any one or more of these factors could adversely affect the Company’s performance and returns.

The Company may become subject to claims by life insurance companies, individuals and their families, or regulatory authorities which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

The secondary market for life insurance policies has been subjected to allegations of fraud and misconduct as reflected in certain litigated cases. Some of these cases, some of which have been brought by regulatory authorities, involve allegations of fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, bid rigging, non-disclosure of material facts and associated misconduct in life settlement transactions. Cases have also been brought by the life insurance companies that challenge the legality of the original issuance of the life insurance policies based on lack of insurable interest, fraud and misrepresentation grounds.

Further, both federal and U.S. state statutes safeguard an insured’s private health information. In addition, insureds frequently have an expectation of confidentiality even if they are not legally entitled to it. Even if the Company properly obtains and uses otherwise private health information, but fails to maintain the confidentiality of such information, the Company may be the subject of complaints from the affected individuals, their families and relatives and, potentially, interested regulatory authorities. Because of the uncertainty of applicable laws, it is not possible to predict the outcome of those disputes. It is also possible that, due to a misunderstanding regarding the scope of consents that a transaction party possesses, the Company may request and receive from health care providers, information that it in fact did not have a right to request or receive. If the Company finds itself to be the recipient of complaints for these acts, it is not possible to predict what the results will be. This uncertainty also increases the likelihood that a transaction party may sell, or cause to be sold, life insurance policies in violation of applicable law, which could potentially result in additional costs related to defending claims or enduring regulatory inquiries, rescinding such transactions, possible legal damages and penalties and probable reduced market value of the affected life insurance policies. Each of the foregoing factors may delay or reduce the return on the policies and adversely affect the Company’s business and results of operations.

Life settlements in which we invest are not currently regulated under the federal securities laws, but if deemed to be securities would require further compliance with federal and state securities laws, which could result in significant additional regulatory burdens on the Company, and limit the Company’s investments, which could have an adverse impact on the Company’s business and results of operations.

The origination and trading in whole, non-variable life insurance policies has historically been understood to not involve transactions in securities. However, on February 22, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a case captioned In the Matter of Living Benefits Asset Management, LLC, vs. Kestrel Aircraft Company, Incorporated, case No. 18-10510, concluded that whole, non-variable life insurance policies, when offered for sale to an investor, were securities for purposes of the Investment Company Act. If this same conclusion were to be reached in other circuits or at the Supreme Court and extended to the Securities Act, there would be significant changes to our industry and it would materially impact the Company’s ability to conduct its business.

In 2002, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion with respect to fractionalized death benefits payable under non-variable policies in SEC v. Mutual Benefits Corp., but, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals reached a contrary result with respect to fractionalized death benefits in SEC v. Life Partners which was decided in 1996. The Company does not presently transact in fractionalized death benefits, i.e. buying or selling a part of, but not all of, a life settlement policy, nor does it currently plan to transact in fractionalized death benefits.

On July 22, 2010, the SEC released a staff report that recommended that Congress clearly define life settlements to be securities, so that the investors in life settlements transactions would be protected under the U.S. federal securities laws. To date, the SEC has not made another such recommendation to Congress nor has Congress acted on the SEC staff’s report. If the statutory definitions of “security” were to be amended to encompass life settlements involving non-variable life insurance policies, or if the Supreme Court or other Circuit Courts were to conclude that non-variable life insurance policies are securities for purposes of the Securities Act, the Company could become subject to additional extensive regulatory requirements under the federal securities laws. Those regulatory requirements would include the obligation to register the Company’s sales and offerings of life settlements with the SEC as public offerings under the Securities Act. Also, if the resale of non-variable life insurance policies were to be considered securities, the Company’s ownership of those policies as a percentage of its assets or source of income could be limited as it would likely manage its business to avoid being required to register as an “investment company” pursuant to the Investment Company Act. Those limitations could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations. Any legislation or court or regulatory interpretations leading to that regulatory change or a change in the transactions that are characterized as life settlement transactions could lead to significantly increased compliance costs and increased liability risk to the Company, and could adversely affect the Company’s ability to acquire or sell life insurance policies in the future. This could materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, which in turn could materially and adversely affect the performance of the Company.

The Company cannot assure you as to the ultimate content, timing, or effect of changes, nor is it possible at this time to estimate the impact of any such potential change in administration or new legislation on the Company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations and consequently, any potential material and adverse effect on the performance of the Company.

The Company may be subject to certain U.S. state securities laws, and failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in fines, sanctions and rescission of purchase or sale transactions.

Certain U.S. state laws specifically characterize life settlements as securities transactions. Thus, in some U.S. states, purchases and sales of life insurance policies by the Company may be subject to applicable U.S. state blue sky laws or other U.S. state securities laws. The Company intends to comply with all applicable federal and state securities laws. However, this will not necessarily exempt the Company from compliance with U.S. federal or state broker-dealer laws. The failure to comply with applicable securities laws in connection with the purchase or sale of life settlement policies could result in the Company being subject to fines, administrative and civil sanctions and rescission of life settlement policy purchase or sales transactions. Each of the foregoing factors could materially and adversely affect the performance of the Company.

The Company could in the future be required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act or could have to substantively change its business model in order to fit within an applicable exemption from such registration requirement.

The Company’s sales of life insurance policies and investment and financing programs of which the purchase or sale of a life insurance policy is a part are subject to an evolving regulatory landscape. Depending on the facts and circumstances attending such sales or programs, U.S. state and federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act could be implicated, and it is possible that the Company could in the future be required to register as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. The Company would not be able to continue to operate its business as it does today if required to register as an investment company. In such event, the Company would have to substantively change its business model to avoid registration as an investment company under the Investment Company Act. If the Company were required to change its business model in order to fit within an exemption from registration, it would have a material adverse effect on the performance of the Company.

The Company faces privacy and cyber security risks related to its maintenance of proprietary information, including information regarding life settlement policies and the related insureds, and any adverse impact related to such risks could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

The Company relies on data processing systems to price and close transactions, to evaluate investments, to monitor its portfolio and capital, and to generate risk management and other reports that are critical to oversight of the Company’s activities. Further, the Company relies on information systems to store sensitive information about the Company, its affiliates, and its investments, including life settlement policies and information about the related insured individuals and others. While the Company is not aware of security breaches or proceedings related to the processing of information, the loss or improper access, use or disclosure of the Company’s proprietary information can adversely impact the Company. For example, the Company could suffer, among other things, financial loss, the disruption of its business, liability to third parties, regulatory intervention or reputational damage. Any of the foregoing events could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Additionally, the Company collects information related to life insurance, including nonpublic personal information (“NPI”) and protected health information (“PHI”), and information from its website, such as contact information and high-level policy information. The Company also collects information from its employees, such as standard HR information, and business contact information from third party employees. The Company shares information with its service providers, and has entered into non-disclosure and business association agreements, where appropriate. Although the Company has, and believes that each service provider has, procedures and systems in place that it believes are reasonably designed to protect such information and prevent data loss and security breaches, such measures cannot guarantee absolute security.

Furthermore, the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to data, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently with increasing sophistication and may be difficult to detect for long periods of time. For example, hardware or software acquired from third parties may contain defects in design or other problems that could unexpectedly compromise information security. Network connected services provided by third parties to the Company may be susceptible to compromise, leading to a breach of the Company’s network and/or business interruptions. The Company’s systems or facilities may be susceptible to employee error or malfeasance, government surveillance, or other security threats.

The Company is subject to U.S. privacy laws and regulations. Failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of operations; reputational harm; loss of revenue or profits; and other adverse business consequences.

Due to the type of information the Company collects, including personal, medical, and financial information on the underlying insureds, and the nature of its services, the Company is subject to privacy laws. In the United States, federal, state and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws to address privacy, data protection and collection, and the processing and disclosure of certain types of information. Obligations related to these laws are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent and creating regulatory uncertainty. In addition, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which can result in inconsistency or conflict among jurisdictions. Among these laws, the Company is likely subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (“GLBA”) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).

The Company may be considered a financial institution under the GLBA, and is subject to the GLBA through the NPI it collects. The GLBA regulates, among other things, the use of certain information about individuals (NPI) in the context of the provision of financial services. The GLBA includes both a “Privacy Rule,” which imposes obligations on financial institutions relating to the use or disclosure of NPI, and a “Safeguards Rule,” which imposes obligations on financial institutions, and indirectly, their service providers, to implement and maintain physical, administrative and technological measures to protect the security of NPI.

The Company has certain business components that are subject to HIPAA. HIPAA imposes privacy, security and breach notification obligations on “covered entities” and “business associates.” Furthermore, HIPAA requires “covered entities” and “business associates” to develop and maintain policies with respect to the protection of PHI. If in violation of HIPAA, the Company may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations. HIPAA also authorizes state Attorneys Generals to file suit on behalf of their residents. Courts may award damages, costs and attorneys’ fees related to violations of HIPAA in such cases. While HIPAA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue the Company in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for duty of care in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in the misuse or breach of PHI.

Because of the complexity of the various data privacy laws the Company may be subject to, compliance can be costly. The Company has taken general steps to comply with data privacy and security laws. For example, the Company has implemented a number of policies, including policies regarding access controls, customer data privacy, secure data disposal, and incident response and risk assessments. Despite these efforts, the Company may at times fail in its efforts due to the complexity and evolving nature of these laws. Failure to comply with relevant data privacy laws could negatively impact the Company’s operations, including subject the Company to possible government enforcement actions which could result in investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspection, litigation, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight.

The Company’s business may be subject to additional or different government regulation in the future, which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

The Company is currently licensed and operating in 49 states. Increased regulation (whether promulgated under insurance laws or any other applicable law) and regulatory oversight of and changes in law applicable to life settlements may restrict the ability of the Company to carry on its business as currently conducted. This could also impose additional administrative burdens on the Company, including responding to examinations and other regulatory inquiries and implementing policies and procedures. Regulatory inquiries often are confidential in nature, may involve a review of an individual’s or a firm’s activities or may involve studies of the industry or industry practices, as well as the practices of a particular institution.

There is currently no direct legal authority regarding the proper federal tax treatment of life settlements and potential future rulings from the IRS may have significant tax consequences on the Company.

There is no direct legal authority regarding the proper U.S. federal income tax treatment of life settlements, and the Company does not plan to request a ruling from the IRS. Consequently, significant aspects of the tax treatment of the Company’s assets are uncertain, and the IRS or a court might not agree with the Company’s treatment of life settlements as prepaid financial contracts that are not debt. If the IRS were successful in asserting an alternative treatment, the tax consequences of ownership and disposition of life settlements could be materially and adversely affected. In addition, in 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS released a notice requesting public comments on various issues regarding the U.S. federal income tax treatment of “prepaid forward contracts” and similar instruments. Any Treasury regulations or other guidance promulgated after consideration of these issues could materially and adversely affect the tax consequences of an investment in life settlements, possibly with retroactive effect.

There have been lawsuits in various states questioning whether a purchaser of a life insurance policy has the requisite “insurable interest” in the policy which would permit the purchaser to collect the insurance benefits and an adverse finding in any of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

All states require that the initial purchaser of a new life insurance policy insuring the life of another individual have an insurable interest in that individual’s life at the time of the original issuance of the policy. An “insurable interest” is an economic stake in an event for which a person or entity purchases an insurance policy. An insurance policy may only be initially purchased by a person or entity who has an insurable interest in the insured. For example, if a spouse purchases an insurance policy on his or her spouse or a company purchases an insurance policy on an employee. In addition, some states may require that the Company have an insurable interest in the insured. Whether an insurable interest exists in the context of the purchase of a life insurance policy is critical because in the absence of a valid insurable interest, life insurance policies are unenforceable under the laws of most states. Where a life insurance policy has been issued to a policy holder without an insurable interest in the life of the insured, the life insurance company may not be required to pay the face value under the policy and may also be entitled to retain the premiums paid. Generally, there are two forms of insurable interest in the life of an individual, familial and financial. Additionally, an individual is deemed to have an insurable interest in his or her own life. Insurable interest is determined at the inception of the policy. The definition of exactly what constitutes “insurable interest” tends to vary by state. Some cases have also been initiated by life insurance companies, challenging the legality of the original issuance of policies on insurable interest grounds and asserting that such policies constitute “Stranger-Originated Life Insurance” or “STOLI,” which is defined as a practice or plan to initiate a life insurance policy for a third-party investor who, at the time of policy origination, has no insurable interest in the insured. Some states (such as Utah and New York) permit the heirs and beneficiaries of an insured to recover the face value under such STOLI policies rather than the policy owner which lacked insurable interest.

While the Company does not believe it has invested in any STOLI polices, and has policies and procedures in place to identify potential STOLI policies, there can be no guarantee that the Company will identify all STOLI policies. As such, the Company may acquire certain life insurance policies that may be deemed by an issuing insurance company to be STOLI policies, whether purposefully, if the Company deems such life insurance policy to be an attractive investment even after taking into account the insurable interest risk, or inadvertently, where the true nature of such life insurance policy is not discovered prior to its acquisition by the Company. Should an issuing insurance company successfully challenge the validity of a life insurance policy acquired by the Company, the Company will lose its investment in such life insurance policy. Furthermore, the Company will also suffer losses if a family member of an insured is successful in asserting a claim that he or she, and not the Company, is entitled to the face value payable under a life insurance policy.

The failure of the Company to accurately and timely track and pay premium payments on the life insurance policies it holds could result in the lapse of such policies which would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business.

In order to realize on its investment in life insurance policies, the Company must ensure that the life insurance policies remain in force until they mature or are sold by the Company. Failure by the Company to pay premiums on the life insurance policies when due will result in termination or “lapse” of the life insurance policies and will result in the loss of the Company’s investment in such life insurance policies.

The originating life insurance company may increase the cost of insurance premiums, which would adversely affect the Company’s returns.

For any life insurance policies that may be obtained by the Company, the Company will be responsible for maintaining the policies, including paying insurance premiums. If a life insurance company increases the cost of insurance charged for any of the life insurance policies held by the Company, the amounts required to be paid for insurance premiums due for these life insurance policies may increase, requiring the Company to incur additional costs for the life insurance policies which may reduce the value of such life insurance policies and consequently affect the returns available on such policies.

Life insurance companies have in the past materially increased the cost of insurance charges. There can be no assurance that life insurance policies acquired by the Company will not be subject to cost of insurance increases. If any such life insurance policies are affected by a cost of insurance increase, the value of such life insurance policy may be materially reduced and the Company may decide or may be forced to allow such life insurance policy to lapse, resulting in a loss to the Company.

In the event an insurance company experiences significantly higher than anticipated expenses associated with operation and/or policy administration, or, in some instances, lower investment returns, the insurance company may have the right to increase the charges to each of its policy owners, but not beyond guaranteed maximums. While the insurance companies did not specify the reason for the increases, it is generally believed that the low interest rate environment was a significant contributing factor in the decision to raise the cost of insurance.

The Company may not be able to liquidate its life insurance policies which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company engages in the purchase and sale of life insurance policies. The liquidation value of these life insurance policies is important where, for example, it becomes necessary to sell life insurance policies from the Company’s hold portfolio in order to meet the Company’s cash flow needs, including the payment of future premiums.

In many cases liquidations may not be a viable option to meet the Company’s liquidity because of, among other things: (1) the lack of a market for such life insurance policies at the time; (2) the uncertainties surrounding the liquidation value of an individual life insurance policy; (3) the extensive amount of time and effort it might take to sell a life insurance policy; (4) the effect excessive sales of life insurance policies may have on transactions and future cash flows; and (5) the tax consequences.

The Company assumes the credit risk associated with life insurance companies and may not be able to realize the full value of insurance company payouts which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s profits.

The Company will assume the credit risk associated with life insurance policies issued by various life insurance companies. The failure or bankruptcy of any such life insurance company could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s ability to achieve its investment objectives. A life insurance company’s business tends to track general economic and market conditions that are beyond its control, including extended economic recessions, interest rate changes, the subprime lending market crisis or changes in investor perceptions regarding the strength of insurers generally and the life insurance policies or annuities they offer. Adverse economic factors and volatility in the financial markets may have a material adverse effect on a life insurance company’s business obligation to pay the face value of policies.

The insolvency of any insurance company or a downgrade in the ratings of an insurance company could have a material adverse impact on the value of the related life insurance policies, the collectability of the related face value, cash surrender value or other amounts agreed to be paid by such insurance company. In the event that a life insurance carrier becomes insolvent or is placed into receivership, most state guaranty associations place a $300,000 or lower cap on face value for policies per insured. In addition to the limitations on the amount of coverage, which vary by state, there are limitations on who may make claims under such coverage and the Company may not be eligible to make claims under U.S. state guarantee funds as most U.S. state guarantee fund laws were enacted with the stated goal of assisting policyholders residing in such states. Even if available to the Company, guarantee fund coverage limits are typically smaller than the face values of some of the life insurance policies that the Company will acquire. There can be no assurance that as more life settlement transactions are undertaken, legislators will not adopt additional restrictions on the availability of U.S. state guaranty funds.

The Company’s success is dependent upon the services of its experienced management and talented employees. If the Company is unable to retain management and/or key employees, its ability to compete could be harmed.

The success of the Company is dependent upon the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals employed by the Company and the Company’s ability to identify and willingness to provide acceptable compensation to attract, retain and motivate experienced management, talented investment professionals and other employees. Most of the shares registered for sale by the Registration Statement of which this Prospectus is a part are owned by our founders who are also key members of management of the Company.

There can be no assurance that the Company’s management and professionals will continue to be associated with the Company, and the failure to attract or retain such professionals could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s ability to execute on its business plan. Competition in the financial services industry for qualified management and employees is intense and there is no guarantee that, if lost, the talents of the Company’s professionals could be replaced.

The Company’s intellectual property rights may not adequately protect the Company’s business.

To be successful, the Company must protect its technology, know-how and brand through means, such as trademarks, trade secrets, patents, copyrights, service marks, contractual restrictions, and other intellectual property rights and confidentiality procedures. Despite the Company’s efforts to implement these protections, they may not adequately protect its business for a variety of reasons, including:

• inability to successfully register or obtain patents and other intellectual property rights for important innovations that sufficiently protect the full scope of such innovations;

• inability to maintain appropriate confidentiality and other protective measures to establish and maintain the Company’s trade secrets;

• potential invalidation of the Company’s intellectual property rights through administrative processes or litigation; and

• other practical, resource, or business limitations on the Company’s ability to detect and prevent infringement or misappropriation of our rights and to enforce our rights.

Litigation may be necessary to enforce the Company’s intellectual property or proprietary rights, protect the Company’s trade secrets, or determine the validity and scope of proprietary rights claimed by others. Any litigation, whether or not resolved in the Company’s favor, could result in significant expense to the Company, and divert the time and efforts of the Company’s technical and management personnel. If the Company is unable to prevent third parties from infringing upon, violating or misappropriating the Company’s intellectual property or is required to incur substantial expenses defending the Company’s intellectual property rights, the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

The Company may become subject to intellectual property disputes, which are costly and may subject the Company to significant liability and increased costs of doing business.

The Company may in the future become subject to intellectual property disputes. The Company’s success depends, in part, on the Company’s ability to operate without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. However, the Company may not be aware that its practices are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating third-party intellectual property rights, and such third parties may bring claims against the Company or its business partners alleging such infringement, misappropriation or violation.

Any claims of intellectual property infringement, even those without merit, may be time-consuming and expensive to resolve, divert management’s time and attention, cause the Company to cease using or incorporating the asserted challenged intellectual property rights expose it to other legal liabilities, or require it to enter into licensing agreements to obtain the right to use a third party’s intellectual property. Although the Company carries general liability insurance, it may not cover potential claims of this type or may not be adequate to indemnify the Company for all liability that may be imposed. The Company cannot predict the outcome of lawsuits and cannot ensure that the results of any such actions will not have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations.

Even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in the Company’s favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of the Company’s management and harm the Company’s business and results of operations.

Pandemics, along with rising interest rates and inflation, may disrupt the ability of the Company and its providers to originate life settlement policies which could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position.

Pandemics, particularly in the United States, could have a material and adverse effect on our business operations. These could include disruptions or restrictions on our ability to source life settlement policies, as well as temporary closures of our facilities and the facilities of our third-party service providers. Any disruption or delay of our third-party service providers would likely impact our operating results. In addition, a significant outbreak of contagious diseases in the human population could result in a widespread health crisis that could adversely affect the economies and financial markets of the United States and throughout the world, resulting in an economic downturn that could affect demand for the life insurance policies and significantly impact the Company’s operating results. Adverse changes in the perceived or actual economic climate, including higher

unemployment rates, declines in income levels, inflation, and recession may shift the timing and volume of transactions, or the number of customers using our services for a prolonged period.

In the past, we have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting that existed as of December 31, 2022, which were remediated as of December 31, 2023.

Detailed descriptions of the changes to internal control over financial reporting as they relate to the material weaknesses are provided in Part II, Item 9A—“Controls and Procedures” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If we experience additional material weaknesses in the future or otherwise fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations.

In the future we may discover additional material weaknesses in our system of internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that could result in a material misstatement of our financial statements. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

Risks Related to Being a Public Company

The market price of our notes may be volatile or may decline regardless of our operating performance. You may lose some or all of your investment.

The trading price of our notes may be volatile. The securities markets have recently experienced extreme volatility. This volatility often has been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. You may not be able to resell your notes at an attractive price due to a number of factors such as the following:

• the impact of pandemics on our financial condition and the results of operations;

• our operating and financial performance and prospects;

• conditions that impact demand for our products and/or services;

• future announcements concerning our business, our clients’ businesses or our competitors’ businesses;

• the market’s reaction to our reduced disclosure and other requirements as a result of being an “emerging growth company” under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”);

• the size of our public float;

• privacy and data protection laws, privacy or data breaches, or the loss of data;

• changes in senior management or key personnel;

• changes in our dividend policy;

• changes in general market, economic and political conditions in the United States and global economies or financial markets, including those resulting from inflation, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, acts of war and responses to such events.

These broad market and industry factors may materially reduce the market price of the notes, regardless of our operating performance. In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our notes is low. As a result, you may suffer a loss on your investment.

In the past, following periods of market volatility, stockholders have instituted securities class action litigation. If we were involved in securities litigation, it could have a substantial cost and divert resources and the attention of management from our business regardless of the outcome of such litigation.

If we do not develop and implement all required accounting practices and policies, we may be unable to provide the financial information required of a U.S. publicly traded company in a timely and reliable manner.

The implementation of all required accounting practices and policies and the hiring of additional financial staff has increased and may continue to increase our operating costs and requires our management to devote significant time and resources to such implementation. If we fail to develop and maintain effective internal controls and procedures and disclosure procedures and controls, we may be unable to provide financial information and required SEC reports that are timely and reliable. Any such delays or deficiencies could harm us, including by limiting our ability to obtain financing, either in the public capital markets or from private sources and damaging our reputation, which in either cause could impede our ability to implement our growth strategy. In addition, any such delays or deficiencies could result in our failure to meet the requirements for continued listing of our notes on NASDAQ.

Our ability to timely raise capital in the future may be limited, or may be unavailable on acceptable terms, if at all. Our failure to raise capital when needed could harm our business, operating results and financial condition. Debt issued to raise additional capital may reduce the cash flow available to make required payments with respect to the notes and affect our ability to execute our investment strategy or impact the value of our investments.

We have funded our operations since inception primarily through our origination, active management and holding of life settlement policies. We cannot be certain when or if our operations will generate sufficient cash to fund our ongoing operations or the growth of our business.

We intend to continue to make investments to support our business and may require additional funds. Additional financing may not be available on favorable terms, if at all. If adequate funds are not available on acceptable terms, we may be unable to invest in future growth opportunities, which could harm our business, operating results and financial condition. If we incur debt, the debt holders could have rights senior to holders of the notes to make claims on our assets.

The Company has a series of warrants outstanding (collectively the “Warrants”), which include: (i) warrants (the “Private Placement Warrants”) originally issued in connection the Company’s initial public offering (the “Company IPO”) to purchase up to 7,120,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Common Stock”), issuable upon the exercise, at an exercise price of $11.50 per share; (ii) warrants issued in connection with the Closing of the Business Combination to purchase up to 1,780,000 shares of our Common Stock issuable upon the exercise, at an exercise price of $11.50 per share; (iii) warrants (the “Public Warrants”) issued in connection with the Company IPO to purchase up to 17,250,000 shares of Common Stock, at an exercise price of $11.50 per share, of the public warrants. We receive no capital until the Warrants are exercised, which do not expire until 2028. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

We are an “emerging growth company.” The reduced public company reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our securities less attractive to investors.

We qualify as an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. While we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and plan to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These provisions include: (1) an exemption from compliance with the auditor attestation requirement in the assessment of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (2) not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, (3) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation arrangements in our periodic reports, registration statements and proxy statements and (4) exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, the information we provide will be different than the information that is available with respect to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. In addition, Section 107 of the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of the exemption from complying with new or revised accounting standards provided in Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act as long as we are an emerging growth company. An emerging growth company can therefore delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. The JOBS Act provides that a company can elect to opt out of the extended transition period and comply with the requirements that apply to non-emerging growth companies, but any such election to opt out is irrevocable. We have elected to irrevocably opt out of such extended transition period, which means that when a standard is issued or revised and it has different application dates for public or private companies, we will adopt the new or revised standard at the time public companies adopt the new or revised standard. This may make comparison of our financial statements with another emerging growth company that has not opted out of using the extended transition period difficult or impossible because of the potential differences in accounting standards used.

We cannot predict whether investors will find our securities less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our securities less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our securities. The market price of our securities may be more volatile.

Our executive officers have limited experience in the management of a publicly traded company. Our management team may not successfully or effectively manage its transition to a public company that will be subject to significant regulatory oversight and reporting obligations under federal securities laws. Their limited experience in dealing with the increasingly complex laws pertaining to public companies could be a disadvantage in that it is likely that an increasing amount of their time may be devoted to these activities which will result in less time being devoted to the management and growth of the Company. We may not have adequate personnel with the appropriate level of knowledge, experience and training in the accounting policies, practices or internal controls over financial reporting required of public companies in the United States. The development and implementation of the standards and controls necessary for the Company to achieve the level of accounting standards required of a public company in the United States may require costs greater than expected. It is possible that the Company will be required to expand its employee base and hire additional employees to support its operations as a public company which will increase its operating costs in future periods.

Changes in tax regulations or their interpretation could negatively impact our cash flows and results of operations.

Changes in tax and other revenue raising laws, regulations and policies in the jurisdictions where we do business could impose new restrictions, costs or prohibitions on our practices and negatively impact our results of operations. In addition, interpretation of tax regulations requires us to exercise our judgment and taxing authorities or our independent registered public accounting firm may reach conclusions about the application of such regulations that differ from our conclusions. Changes to US tax laws, regulations, or interpretations could impact the tax treatment of our earnings and adversely affect our cash flows and financial results.

We are subject to audit in various jurisdictions, and these jurisdictions may assess additional taxes against us. Developments in an audit, litigation, or laws, regulations, administrative practices, principles, and interpretations could have a material effect on our operating results or cash flows. The final outcome of tax

audits, investigations, and any related litigation could be materially different from our historical tax provisions and accruals.

Our use of different estimates and assumptions in the application of our accounting policies could result in material changes to our reported financial condition and results of operations, and changes in accounting standards or their interpretation could significantly impact our reported results of operations.

Our accounting policies are critical to the manner in which we present our results of operations and financial condition. Many of these policies, including policies relating to the recognition of revenue, are highly complex and involve many assumptions, estimates and judgments. We are required to review these assumptions, estimates and judgments regularly and revise them when necessary. Our actual results of operations vary from period to period based on revisions to these estimates. See the “Critical Accounting

Estimates” section of Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for further information. In addition, the regulatory bodies that establish accounting and reporting standards, including the SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, periodically revise or issue

new financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our consolidated financial statements. Changes to these standards or their interpretation could significantly impact our reported results in future periods.

Our indebtedness may restrict our operations.

As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately $139,820,514 of total debt outstanding. This indebtedness could restrict our flexibility to react to changes in our businesses, industry, economic conditions, and increase borrowing costs. We must dedicate a portion of our cash flow from operations to debt servicing and repayment of debt, which reduces funds available for strategic initiatives and opportunities, share repurchases, working capital, and other general corporate needs. It also increases our vulnerability to the impact of adverse economic and industry conditions.

If we are unable to comply with our debt agreements, or to raise additional capital when needed, our business, cash flow, liquidity, and results of operations could be harmed.

Our ability to make scheduled cash payments on and to refinance our indebtedness depends on our ability to generate significant operating cash flow in the future, which, to a significant extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that are beyond our control. We may not be able to maintain a sufficient level of cash flow from operating activities to permit us to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness.

In addition, our credit ratings will impact the cost and availability of future borrowings and, accordingly, our cost of capital. Downgrades in our ratings could adversely affect our businesses, cash flows, financial condition, operating results and share and debt prices, as well as our ability to acquired life settlement policies. Failure to make scheduled cash payments on our existing debt, or to comply with the restrictive covenants and other requirements in our debt agreements, could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could result in acceleration of our debt repayment obligations. We may not have sufficient cash to repay any accelerated debt obligations, which would immediately and materially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be required to raise additional capital to refinance our existing debt, or to expand or support our operations. Our access to and cost of financing will depend on, among other things, economic conditions, conditions in the financing markets, the availability of sufficient amounts of financing, our prospects and

our credit ratings, and the outlook for our industry as a whole. The terms of future debt agreements could include more restrictive covenants or require incremental collateral, which may further restrict our business operations or adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing. There is no guarantee that debt or equity financings will be available in the future on terms favorable to us or at all. If we are unable to access additional funds on acceptable terms, we may have to adjust our business operations, and our ability to acquire additional life settlement policies, or make other investments in our business could be

impaired, any of which may adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations.

We may incur substantially more debt, which could exacerbate further the risks associated with our leverage.

We and our subsidiaries may incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. To the extent that we and our subsidiaries incur additional indebtedness or such other obligations, the risks

associated with our substantial indebtedness described above will increase.

Our stock repurchase program may not enhance long-term stockholder value and could increase the volatility of the market price of our common stock and diminish our cash.

Our stock repurchase program does not obligate us to repurchase any shares of our common stock. The timing and amount of any repurchases depend upon several factors, including market conditions, business conditions, statutory and contractual restrictions, the trading price of our common stock and the nature of other investment opportunities available to us. In addition, repurchases of our common stock could affect our stock price and increase its volatility. The existence of a stock repurchase program could cause our stock price to be higher than it would be absent the program and could reduce market liquidity for our stock. Use of our funds to repurchase stock could diminish our cash reserves, which may impact our ability to finance growth, pursue strategic opportunities, and discharge liabilities. Our stock repurchases may not enhance stockholder value because the market price of our common stock may decline below the prices at which we repurchased stock and short-term stock price fluctuations could reduce the program’s effectiveness.