Articles Posted in Investor Education

**Update:  March 14, 2025** Over the past week, the GWG Litigation Trustee has reached agreements with additional defendants to resolve various matters, all of which are subject to court approval.  In addition to the previously reported conditional agreement to settle claims with Beneficient and Brad Heppner for $50.5 million and the settlement with Whitley Penn for $8.5 million (both detailed in our original post below), the Trustee has also secured settlements with Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, and their affiliated trusts and entities for $2.3 million, as well as with the law firm Mayer Brown LLP for $30 million. Collectively, the settlements total approximately $91.3 million, or about 5.6% of the $1.6 billion of GWG L Bonds that were outstanding when GWG filed for bankruptcy in April 2022.  The following is a summary of the settlements to date:

Defendants Allegations Settlement Amount
Brad Heppner and Beneficient (and affiliated trusts and entities) The complaint filed on April 19, 2024, alleges that GWG Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of $1.6 billion in L Bonds, misleading investors about the company’s financial health and the safety of the investments. It claims that the defendants concealed critical information, misrepresented the use of proceeds, and operated a Ponzi-like structure, ultimately harming thousands of investors when the company collapsed into bankruptcy in 2022.

 

$50.5 million
Whitley Penn LLP The allegations against Whitley Penn LLP, GWG Holdings, Inc.’s auditor, include that the company failed to detect and report financial irregularities, contributing to GWG’s fraudulent scheme and subsequent bankruptcy. Whiteley Penn’s actions or inactions allegedly harmed investors.

 

 

$8.5 million
Mayer Brown LLP The allegations against Mayer Brown LLP include that the law firm, as counsel to GWG Holdings, Inc. before and after its bankruptcy filing, provided deficient legal advice and engaged in conflicts of interest, contributing to the company’s fraudulent activities and eventual bankruptcy. Pre-bankruptcy allegations include that the law firm aided and abetted GWG fiduciaries’ breaches of their fiduciary duties in certain transactions.

 

$30 million
Jon R. Sabes, Steven F. Sabes, and their affiliated trusts and entities The complaint filed on April 19, 2024, alleges that Jon Sabes, Steven Sabes, and related companies engaged in breaches of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conduct as officers, directors, or affiliates of GWG Holdings, Inc., contributing to its financial collapse and bankruptcy in 2022.

 

$2.3 million

 

Original Post:

In a significant development for GWG Holdings, Inc. L Bond investors, a $50.5 million settlement agreement was announced on March 7, 2025, aimed at resolving long-standing litigation tied to the company’s bankruptcy. At Iorio Altamirano LLP, we’ve been at the forefront of advocating for GWG L Bond investors, having already recovered over $3 million for our clients. This proposed settlement with certain defendants, including Beneficient and Brad Heppner, could impact thousands of investors who suffered losses when GWG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2022. Here’s what you need to know about the settlement, its implications, and how our firm can help you navigate this complex process.

Key Takeaways from the GWG L Bond Settlement

  • Settlement Amount: $50.5 million to be paid by Defendants’ insurers, pending court approval.
  • Litigation Resolved: Covers both a class action securities lawsuit and a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The settlement resolves claims for investors who purchased GWG L Bonds between June 3, 2020, and April 16, 2021.
  • Distribution: Funds will be allocated to holders of Allowed Claims in GWG’s bankruptcy case, with an estimated $31.48 per $1,000 Unit of L Bonds before deductions. That’s a little over three cents for every dollar invested.
  • Opt-Out Contingency: The settlement could be terminated if too many investors opt out, with specific deadlines in place.
  • Bar Order Hearing: A hearing to finalize a bar order protecting settling Defendants is scheduled for April 16, 2025.
  • Next Steps for Investors: The best avenue of recovery for most GWG L Bond investors remains filing securities arbitration claims against the brokerage firm that sold these risky and speculative securities. Contact our law firm today for a free and no-obligation consultation.
  • Settlement with Whitley Penn: Separately, the GWG Litigation Trustee is seeking approval to settle claims with the accounting firm Whitley Penn for $8.5 million.

Understanding the GWG Holdings Settlement

Background: GWG’s Financial Collapse

GWG Holdings, Inc., a Dallas-based financial services company, marketed L Bonds as a high-yield investment tied to life insurance policies. However, the company faced mounting debt—over $1.3 billion in L Bonds—and regulatory scrutiny, culminating in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on April 20, 2022. This left thousands of investors, many of whom were retirees or conservative savers, with significant losses.

Since then, litigation has unfolded to recover funds for affected investors. The recent settlement marks a pivotal step in this process, addressing claims from both a securities class action (Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-B) and a bankruptcy adversary proceeding (Adv. Pro. No. 24-03090).

Settlement Details

Announced on March 7, 2025, the $50.5 million settlement involves Lead Plaintiff Frank Moore, GWG Litigation Trustee Michael Goldberg, and Defendants, including Brad Heppner and Beneficient entities. Key points include:

  • Funding: The settlement is financed entirely by the Defendants’ insurers, with proceeds forming a Settlement Fund plus interest.
  • Scope: It resolves claims for investors who purchased GWG L Bonds between June 3, 2020, and April 16, 2021, alleging securities law violations due to misleading statements in GWG’s Registration Statement.
  • Distribution Process: After deductions for taxes, administration costs, and attorneys’ fees (up to $8.48 million for Class Counsel and 35% for Trust Counsel), the net fund will be distributed through GWG’s bankruptcy plan. Investors with Allowed Claims can expect an average of $31.48 per $1,000 Unit of L Bonds, though this is before deductions.

The settlement requires approval from both the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Notices will be sent to eligible investors with options to participate, object, or opt out.

Opt-Out Contingency: A Critical Clause

A supplemental agreement, also dated March 6, 2025, introduces an opt-out threshold. If too many class members exclude themselves, the Defendants can terminate the settlement. This contingency underscores the importance of understanding your rights:

  • Deadlines: Opt-out requests must be tracked, with Defendants notified 14 days before the Settlement Hearing and a termination decision due 3 days prior.
  • Flexibility: Investors can retract opt-outs, potentially preserving the settlement if the threshold is met post-withdrawal.

This clause adds uncertainty, making legal guidance essential for investors deciding their next steps.

Bar Order Motion: Ensuring Finality

On March 7, 2025, a motion was filed to secure a bar order, preventing third parties from pursuing GWG-related claims against settling Defendants. This protects the Defendants in exchange for committing nearly all D&O insurance proceeds to the settlement. A hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. in Houston, Texas, with notice provided via the GWG Trust website and other channels.

What This Means for GWG L Bond Investors

Limited Recovery Potential

While $50.5 million is a substantial sum, it pales in comparison to GWG’s $1.3 billion L Bond debt. The estimated $31.48 per $1,000 Unit recovery—before fees and costs—suggests a modest return for investors. For those with significant holdings, this may not fully offset losses, highlighting the need for personalized legal strategies.

Next Steps for Investors

  • Review Your Eligibility: Confirm if you hold an Allowed Claim under GWG’s bankruptcy plan.
  • Evaluate Options: Decide whether to participate, opt out, or object to the settlement, keeping opt-out deadlines in mind.
  • Seek Legal Advice: The complexity of this settlement, coupled with the opt-out contingency and bar order, requires expert guidance to maximize recovery.

How Iorio Altamirano LLP Can Help

At Iorio Altamirano LLP, we’ve recovered over $3 million for GWG L Bond investors through diligent advocacy and strategic litigation against broker-dealers and registered investment advisory firms that sold the GWG L Bonds to retail investors.

With the recovery to investors through the GWG Litigation Trustee’s efforts are likely to be nominal (in this case, a little over three cents for each dollar invested into GWG L Bonds), we continue to believe that GWG L Bonds investors’ best avenue for potential recovery of losses is to file a separate FINRA arbitration claim against their brokerage firms.

Our experience positions us uniquely to assist you in this settlement process:

  • Case Evaluation: We’ll assess your potential claims, explain your options, and guide you through the arbitration process.
  • Maximizing Recovery: Beyond this settlement, we explore additional avenues to recover losses, including claims against brokers or advisors who recommended GWG L Bonds.
  • Proven Results: Our track record speaks for itself—our clients trust us to fight for their financial recovery. We know as much about what happened with GWG Holdings, Inc. and how brokerage firms sold the risky and speculative GWG L Bonds as anyone.

Stay Informed: Key Dates and Resources

  • March 6, 2025: Settlement and opt-out contingency agreements signed.
  • April 16, 2025: Bar order hearing in Houston, Texas.
  • GWG Trust Website: Visit gwgholdingstrust.com/litigation-trust/ for updates.
  • Court Filings: Access documents via the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-B) and Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 22-90032).

Contact Iorio Altamirano LLP Today

Iorio Altamirano LLP is a securities arbitration law firm in New York, NY. We represent investors nationwide and vigorously pursue FINRA arbitration claims on behalf of investors to recover investment losses.

Iorio Altamirano LLP was at the forefront of the investigation into the GWG L Bonds starting in late 2021 and has already helped investors recover over $3 million in losses.

Don’t leave your recovery to chance—contact Iorio Altamirano LLP for a free consultation. Call us toll-free at (855) 430-4010 or click the below link to discuss how we can help you secure the compensation you deserve.

Click Here to Schedule Your Free Consultation

If you’re a GWG L Bond investor, the past few years have likely been a rollercoaster of frustration and uncertainty. The bankruptcy of GWG Holdings, Inc. in 2022 left thousands of investors—many of whom are retirees or conservative savers—reeling from significant financial losses. At Iorio Altamirano LLP, we’ve been fighting tirelessly for GWG L Bondholders, successfully recovering over $2 million in claims against brokerage firms that misrepresented or inappropriately recommended these risky investments.

Now, a development in the GWG bankruptcy case could open new doors for recovery. On February 28, 2025, the bankruptcy trustee tasked with recovering funds for GWG creditors filed a lawsuit against the prominent law firm Holland & Knight. The complaint, accessible via the GWG bankruptcy docket (Case No. 22-90032, Docket No. 2531), seeks nearly $150 million in damages, alleging that Holland & Knight knowingly participated in a “fraudulent looting scheme and associated criminal enterprise” alongside Dallas-based Beneficient and its CEO, Bradley Heppner.

What Are GWG L Bonds, and Why Did They Fail?

Introduction

When disputes arise between investors and brokerage firms, they are usually resolved through arbitration.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) offers a streamlined and cost-effective dispute resolution forum for resolving disputes in the securities industry. In this blog post, we’ll take a deep dive into FINRA arbitration, its key features, benefits, and what you should know if you find yourself involved in a securities-related dispute.

Understanding FINRA Arbitration

Over the past calendar year, GPB Capital investors have won over $2.4 million in monetary awards in 10 out of 11 (nearly 91%) arbitration claims that have proceeded to a final hearing.  According to public records, many other claims filed against broker-dealers who sold the private placements offered by GPB Capital have been settled for monetary compensation.

The judgments and awards come after years of filing lawsuits and arbitration claims by GPB Capital investors.

For our latest posts related to GPB Capital, please click here.

You worked hard, opened a brokerage or retirement account, and invested your savings with a financial advisor or stockbroker, only to suffer financial losses due to bad investment advice, misleading sales pitches, or brokers that were driven by commissions.  Now what?

Can I Sue My Financial Advisor Over Losses?

Yes, you can sue your financial advisor or broker to recover investment losses if the broker did not have your best interest in mind when they made an investment recommendation or offered investment advice.  You can also sue your financial advisor or broker if the financial advisor misrepresented or omitted material facts that an investor should have known about the security or investment strategy.

We are continuing our discussion of FINRA’s 2021 Report on Risk Monitoring and Examination Activities. In Part Two, we will focus on FINRA’s comments and findings related to Variable Annuities, Outside Business Activities, and Private Securities Transactions and Private Placements. These are all areas of interest that directly affect retail investors, and in which FINRA found deficiencies following its examination of member-firms. 

If you are interested in FINRA’s comments regarding Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), Communications with the Public, and Best Execution, you can read Part One of our discussion here.

Variable Annuities

Earlier this week, FINRA released its 2021 Report on Risk Monitoring and Examination Activities. The Report replaced two of FINRA’s prior publications – FINRA’s Examination Findings and Observations Report and FINRA’s Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter. The Report provided an in-depth look at FINRA’s priorities, recommended best practices for broker-dealer members, and regulatory findings. The Report reiterated FINRA’s commitment to protecting senior and vulnerable investors and highlighted several important areas of interest that directly affect retail investors, including:

  • Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI)
  • Communications with the Public

Investing your money is a great way to grow your wealth, save for retirement, and reach your financial goals.  If you invest in the appropriate products, you can also receive income from investments, build on-pre-tax dollars, or reduce taxable income.

If you do not invest, you miss out on opportunities to increase your wealth.  However, all investments carry risk, and when you invest, you have the potential to lose money.

There are many different types of investments.  Some common types of investments include stocks, bonds, certificates of deposit, mutual funds, money market funds, exchange-traded funds, and annuities.  There are also more complex investment vehicles, such as real estate investment trusts (REITs), unit investment trusts (UITs), hedge funds, commodities, and private placements.

An in and out trading strategy refers to short-term trading in an investor’s account. In other words, buying in and selling out of securities in a short period of time with no real basis for the stockbroker’s recommendation in either the suitability of the securities or the trading strategy.

In and out is a trading strategy that is commonly associated with day trading. While the strategy may be suitable for some investors or desired by other investors, it is a highly speculative trading strategy for most retail investors. A staple of the strategy is that it generates fees and commissions for the stockbroker and the broker-dealer while costing the investor money. Generally, the investor will be hit with high per-trade transaction costs and even principal losses if the stockbroker is selling investments at a loss in order to engage in the strategy. In and out trading is not appropriate for most investors, and stockbrokers should, at a minimum, have a reasonable basis to recommend this strategy to a particular investor.

Under FINRA rules, a stockbroker is required to perform reasonable due diligence to understand two key areas: 1) the stockbroker’s in and out trading strategy recommendation and 2) the impact the stockbroker’s recommendation has on the account’s ability to turn a profit. To do so, it must assess the cumulative impact that commissions and fees associated with an in and out trading strategy will have on an investor’s ability to earn a profit. Failure to observe these considerations about the quantitative suitability of the trades may lead to investor claims against a stockbroker for unsuitable and excessive trading. Investors may also have a failure to supervise claim against the broker-dealer firm if the trading activity in an account warranted further review by a supervisor, if the trading exceeded turnover and cost-to-equity ratios, and if the broker-dealer failed to take action or ignored its own system’s alerts.

Contact Information