1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

BENEFICIENT and BRAD HEPPNER

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

ALEXANDER GLADSTONE,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. ___________ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Beneficient and Brad Heppner, in support of their Complaint against Defendant 

Alexander Gladstone, state the following: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action is the result of a defamatory campaign by The Wall Street Journal

reporter Alexander Gladstone to damage and defame Plaintiffs Brad Heppner and Beneficient 

through a series of deliberately sensationalized and irresponsible articles and tweets. Heppner and 

Beneficient, the company he founded, are pioneers in the alternative asset space and, like all 

entrepreneurs and enterprises that build an entirely new market segment from the ground up, have 

done so through novel (and sometimes complex) transactions. Plaintiffs, through their 

representatives, have repeatedly explained these transactions and Beneficient’s business to 

Gladstone over dozens of hours. 

2. However, instead of reporting fairly on what he learned, Gladstone has purposefully 

disregarded critical facts, distorted critical timelines, and cherry-picked the information he has 

received to promote an overarching, pre-ordained conclusion: Brad Heppner, through his control 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 1
2

of Beneficient and other companies, engineered self-serving transactions to enrich himself—and 

maintain a so-called “lavish lifestyle”—at the expense of vulnerable and elderly “retail” investors. 

That is false. Gladstone knows it is false. And Plaintiffs can prove it is false. 

3. On July 29, 2022, Gladstone published an article in The Wall Street Journal (“The

Journal”) entitled, “An Asset-Management Merger Ended in Bankruptcy, While Its Architect Got 

$174 Million” (the “Article”). Separately, Gladstone published a tweet promoting the Article.1 

Gladstone leads both the Article and the defamatory tweet with a picture of the supposed payoff 

of the supposed scheme: an operating ranch in Anderson County, Texas. 

4. In the Article, Gladstone asserts that this Ranch was paid for through a “transfer” 

of $230 million from the now-bankrupt GWG to Beneficient, two companies that Gladstone 

alleges Heppner controlled. Gladstone claims that the so-called “transfer” of funds from the GWG 

transaction to Beneficient allowed Heppner to gain “access” to “private jets and other benefits.” 

Gladstone further alleges that Heppner is misusing corporate funds for his personal gain and that 

he has a history of taking other people’s money. The vehicle for such alleged corporate 

misbehavior is Beneficient, which Gladstone paints as Heppner’s personal fiefdom. In other 

words, Gladstone accuses Heppner and Beneficient of misusing corporate fundsto enrich Heppner, 

saddling elderly retail investors with billions in losses. 

5. This is false and defamatory. To make Heppner and Beneficient look as though

they had engaged in self-dealing “transfers” of money from hapless retail investors to “fund his

lavish lifestyle,” Gladstone intentionally distorts the timeline of these events, knowingly 

misrepresents facts, and deliberately omits critical details and context that contradict his 

1 A true and accurate copy Gladstone’s July 29, 2022 defamatory tweet promoting the Article is attached as Exhibit 

A. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 2
3

preconceived narrative. Neither Heppner nor Beneficient engaged in any such “transfer[]” of 

money to the detriment of investors. 

6. In actuality, and as explained below, GWG made successful investments in 

Beneficient that, at the time of Gladstone’s Article and tweet, had made GWG (and its investors) 

a significant positive return, contrary to Gladstone’s defamatory implications. Similarly, Heppner 

and Beneficient have not used the transactions to allow Heppner to access a “lavish lifestyle,” such 

as buying the Ranch or using private jets. Indeed, contrary to Gladstone’s insinuations, Heppner 

is a successful businessman who purchased the Ranch almost twenty years ago—long before the 

transactions involving Beneficient—and has owned and used private jets for many years.2

 

7. Gladstone published these falsehoods with actual malice. Heppner’s and 

Beneficient’s representatives repeatedly notified Gladstone of specific factual errors in the Article 

both before and after its publication, yet Gladstone rejected this information and the proposed 

corrections to serve his preconceived agenda of enticing readers with salacious half-truths, 

misleading implications, and a preconceived narrative in which Heppner and Beneficient stole 

from the elderly in order to buy a ranch and fly on private jets. Since publication, Gladstone has 

continued his crusade against Beneficient and Heppner, republishing the false implications in 

additional articles in The Wall Street Journal, including in a highly misleading and damaging 

article on July 28, 2023. 

8. The predictable outcome is that third parties have concluded that the falsehoods in 

the Article and tweet are true, that Heppner is indeed a crook and a criminal, and that Beneficient 

is a sham. Third parties have expressed these views publicly on social media. 

2 The Ranch, located in the Eastern District of Texas, was originally purchased in 2003. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 3
4

9. Just as predictably, Heppner and Beneficient have suffered significant real-world 

damage apart from the conclusions of those on the internet. As explained in full below, Beneficient 

and Heppner (currently serving as Beneficient’s CEO) provide custodial and trust services and 

unlock liquidity for high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors, a service that requires 

the utmost trust of their clients and the confidence of many regulatory agencies. False allegations 

that Beneficient is a dishonest enterprise run by a dishonest CEO therefore strike at the heart of 

the business and Heppner’s livelihood. Beneficient’s and Heppner’s reputations in the eyes of 

prospective investors and business partners have been seriously harmed by Gladstone’s false and 

defamatory claims. 

10. Heppner and Beneficient bring this suit to vindicate their rights under civil law, to 

restore their reputations as upstanding providers of innovative alternative asset management 

services, to restore Heppner’s reputation as an upstanding member of the business community, and 

to establish Gladstone’s liability for the harm that his false and defamatory statements have caused 

Plaintiffs. 

11. Heppner and Beneficient seek an award of compensatory damages for reputational 

and economic harm they have suffered, and, given the willful and malicious nature of Gladstone’s

conduct in knowingly publishing defamatory falsehoods about them, Plaintiffs seek an award of 

punitive damages. 

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff Brad Heppner lives in Dallas Texas but spends a significant portion of his 

time at the Bradley Oaks Ranch in Anderson County, Texas. Among other roles, Heppner is the 

Founder, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Plaintiff Beneficient. Heppner is 

a philanthropist and entrepreneur with over thirty years of experience in some of the world’s most 

widely respected financial institutions. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 4
5

13. Plaintiff Beneficient is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Nevada with 

its primary place of business in Dallas, Texas. Beneficient is a pioneering alternative asset 

company that provides regulated and examined private trust solutions and custodial management

for fiduciary financial transactions, and which focuses on unlocking liquidity for individuals and 

businesses. Beneficient’s subsidiaries are regulated and examined by banking regulators, the SEC, 

and FINRA, which monitor articles in The Journal reporting on regulated businesses such as 

Beneficient. 

14. Defendant Alexander Gladstone is a resident of, and is domiciled in, New York, 

New York. Gladstone is a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, and covers financial distress, 

volatility, credit defaults, and restructuring, among other topics. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the 

parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Gladstone pursuant to Tex. 

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042, which extends jurisdiction to the full extent possible under the 

Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, under subsection (2) because Defendant 

injured Heppner and Beneficient and their reputations in Texas. Defendant published defamatory 

statements about Heppner, Beneficient, and its operations to be viewed in Texas, and thus 

committed a tort in the state of Texas. 

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Gladstone because he 

expressly aimed and purposefully directed his defamatory statements at Heppner and Beneficient, 

a Texas resident and a corporation with its primary place of business in Texas, respectively, 

knowing that the impact would be felt in Texas. Gladstone has traveled to Texas to interview 

Heppner in person and, upon information and belief, also has traveled separately to the Bradley 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 5
6

Oaks Ranch in Anderson County, Texas in connection with his reporting on Heppner and 

Beneficient. Notably, the defamatory statements at issue in this action relate directly to the Bradley 

Oaks Ranch in Texas, and a picture of the Ranch is featured prominently next to the headline of 

Gladstone’s Article and in his tweet. By publishing his defamatory statements on The Journal’s

website, Gladstone knowingly and intentionally published defamatory statements to the public in 

Texas. In addition, Gladstone published defamatory statements of and concerning Heppner, a 

Texas resident; Beneficient, a company with its principal base of operations in Texas; the Bradley 

Oaks Ranch, which is located in Texas; and Heppner’s and Beneficient’s activities in Texas, all 

using information derived from Texas-based sources. 

18. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this district, because Heppner

and Beneficient suffered economic and reputational harm in this district, because the defamatory 

statements were published in this district, because a substantial part of property that is subject of 

the action (the Bradley Oaks Ranch) is located in this district, and because Defendant is subject to 

the Court’s personal jurisdiction in this district.

FACTS

Brad Heppner Builds A Strong Reputation As A Leader In 

The Financial Services And Alternative Asset Industries, 

And As A Philanthropist And Entrepreneur. 

19. Brad Heppner is a leader in the financial services industry, with more than 30 years 

of leadership and entrepreneurial experience in finance and alternative asset management, where 

he has founded more than ten companies. 

20. Heppner earned a BBA, BBS, and BA from Southern Methodist University in 

Dallas, Texas and a Master of Management from the Kellogg School at Northwestern University

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 6
7

in Evanston, Illinois. Heppner has held positions at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur 

charitable foundation and Bain & Company. 

21. Heppner has founded more than ten companies, including Constitution Private 

Capital Company, L.L.C., Capital Analytics, and The Crossroads Group, L.P., the last of which he 

sold to Lehman Brothers. Capital Analytics is now held by Mitsubishi Union Financial Group, 

the subsidiary of one of the world’s largest banks located in Japan. 

22. Heppner is a frequent author on the evolution of the financial services industry, 

inventor of seven patent-pending technologies for the industry, trailblazer, and innovator in the 

alternative asset sector of the financial services industry. 

23. In addition to his leadership in the alternative asset sector, Heppner is also a 

philanthropist who has donated his time and money to public service. 

24. Heppner was a founder and former director of his Kansas hometown’s Community 

Foundation, and currently serves on the advisory board of the Cox School of Business at Southern 

Methodist University. 

25. Heppner was behind the organization of the Kansas Economic Growth Trust and 

founded the Beneficient Heartland Foundation, which in the last year have collectively generated 

nearly $18 million in cash and assets for the benefit of Kansas-based colleges and universities and 

small rural hometowns located in the principally agricultural counties of Kansas. These funds 

have been dedicated toward economic development in struggling communities such as the 

development and re-opening of community-based grocery stores.

Beneficient Is A Pioneer 

In The Alternate Asset Industry

26. Heppner began building what is now known as Beneficient in 2003, which is today 

focused on creating a more investor-friendly and regulated approach to alternative asset 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 7
8

supervision, management, and liquidity. Heppner is the Founder, Chairman, and CEO of 

Beneficient. 

27. Beneficient’s business includes serving as a regulated and examined fiduciary and 

trustee, providing custodial and trust services in fiduciary financial transactions, and unlocking

liquidity for high-net-worth and institutional owners of illiquid, alternative assets, such as 

ownership in private equity companies.

28. The services Beneficient and Heppner provide are highly valuable to institutions 

and individuals who own alternative assets because it is often difficult for those owners to access 

such regulated fiduciary services and liquidity during lock-up periods or other contractual 

restrictions. To address this issue, Beneficient offers a variety of services, including regulated and 

examined services in fiduciary financial transactions for fiduciary and trustee oversight, trust and 

fund administration, custody services, and insurance services. Beneficient primarily serves highnet-worth individuals, smaller institutions, and asset managers. 

29. For Beneficient to succeed, it is essential that both Heppner and Beneficient

maintain reputations of trustworthiness and fiduciary carefulness, as Beneficient engages in 

complex financial transactions that often comprise a meaningful allocation of a high-net-worth 

individual’s net worth. In fact, the company’s website is “Trustben.com.” 

30. From its founding until 2017, Beneficient was part of a closely held, family-owned 

company that owned or controlled Heppner’s family office and a variety of investment assets in 

addition to the asset liquidity business. During that period, Beneficient owned investment assets 

(including the Ranch) as well as the alternative asset-focused operating business. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 8
9

31. However, as Beneficient grew and sought investment from large industryrecognized institutional third parties, it became necessary to separate its Beneficient operations 

from Heppner’s family office and the numerous other investment assets. 

32. Beneficient’s transaction with third-party investors included the agreed-upon 

separation of Beneficient’s operating business from its investment assets such as the Ranch and 

Heppner’s family office. As a result, assets, operations, and investments unrelated to Beneficient’s 

core business model, including the Ranch, were distributed to entities associated with Heppner, 

but not to Heppner himself.

33. The separation of these assets was agreed to by large third-party institutional 

investors in connection with Beneficient’s formative transaction in 2017 and were subsequently 

reviewed by a special committee of Beneficient’s Board of Directors, who had their own outside 

counsel, as well as Beneficient’s audit committee and audited by third-party auditors, including 

the regional auditing firm of Whitley Penn as well as Deloitte, the nation’s largest accounting firm. 

The third-party transactions that included the separation of the assets were also disclosed in audited 

financial statements filed with Securities and Exchange Commission as early as 2018.

GWG Holdings Makes Successful Investment In Beneficient

34. GWG Holdings (“GWG”) is a publicly traded company based in Dallas, Texas,

whose historical business was primarily buying life insurance policies in the secondary market. 

By doing so, it allowed thousands of holders of life insurance policies to avoid “surrendering” their 

policies back to the issuer in exchange for a very small “surrender value.”

35. Between 2012 and 2021, GWG sold public debt securities, called “L Bonds,” to 

raise capital to run its ongoing business and to purchase life insurance policies. GWG fully 

disclosed the risks of buying L Bonds to investors, including explicitly stating that they were high 

risk and that there was a chance that the investor could lose the entire principal. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 9
10

36. In January 2018, GWG decided to invest in Beneficient for several reasons,

including to diversify its business. This investment decision was fully disclosed and was made by 

an independent board of directors of GWG that evaluated the decision beforehand. 

37. GWG’s business, including its sale of L Bonds, existed for more than five years 

before Heppner was introduced to GWG in 2017. Heppner, Beneficient, its Board of Directors 

and all affiliates had no prior knowledge of GWG, its founders, Board of Directors or management 

prior to the months leading up to GWG’s decision to invest in Beneficient.

38. GWG has invested approximately $230 million of cash in Beneficient net of cash 

realizations and distributions to GWG. At the time of Gladstone’s Article and tweet, the GWG 

investment in Beneficient was substantially more than the amount invested. In other words, the 

GWG investment in Beneficient was highly successful. 

39. In April 2019, Heppner joined GWG’s board as chairman, which is one board seat 

on a multi-member board. Heppner never made any investment in GWG, and at no point in time 

did Beneficient or Heppner ever control GWG or own or control a majority of GWG’s equity. 

40. Following the appointment of Beneficient representatives to the board of GWG, 

special governance provisions were enacted to ensure that there was independent review, 

excluding Heppner and members of Beneficient’s board and management teams, of any investment 

transactions that might occur between GWG and Beneficient. 

41. In December 2019, GWG acquired the non-transferable contractual right to appoint 

the majority of the Board of Directors of Beneficient. 

42. From December 2019 to December 2021, Beneficient was controlled by GWG and 

a consolidated operating subsidiary of GWG. GWG was not controlled by Beneficient or Heppner

during this time and has never been controlled by either of them. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 10
11

43. Special committees of GWG that Heppner was not a member of decided to make 

additional investments in Beneficient between the end of 2019 and early 2021 amounting to the 

net cash amount of $230 million. GWG’s investment in Beneficient, at the time of Gladstone’s 

Article and tweet, was worth substantially more than the principal invested. 

44. Despite its successful investments in Beneficient, and due to other issues primarily 

related to the historical life insurance business and bond issuance program, GWG filed for chapter 

11 bankruptcy in April 2022, after Heppner and other members of Beneficient’s Board of Directors 

had departed the GWG board to address concerns raised by state officials assisting in the chartering 

of certain of Beneficient’s regulated business lines.

Gladstone Contacts Heppner and Beneficient Regarding A 

Proposed Wall Street Journal Article

45. On July 22, 2022, just 7 days before The Journal ultimately published the Article 

about Plaintiffs that is the subject of this action, Gladstone contacted Heppner’s and Beneficient’s 

representatives, asking that his message be directed to Heppner, a Texas resident. 

46. In this message, Gladstone included a list of supposed “facts” about Heppner and 

Beneficient that he had “determined,” and stated that he was giving them an opportunity “to 

comment or provide insight[].” Gladstone suggested they contact him if there was anything 

“factually incorrect,” or if they wished to provide “context.” 

47. Gladstone’s so-called “facts” included defamatory falsehoods and false 

implications that Beneficient’s and Heppner’s representatives tried hard to educate Gladstone to 

correct, to no avail. 

48. For example, Gladstone had already fixated on the “expensive” so-called “lifestyle” 

that Heppner supposedly leads—and that Beneficient allegedly wrongfully enabled—as a focal 

point of the story, including the Ranch. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 11
12

49. Despite the fact that many of those falsehoods were specifically disproven by 

Heppner’s and Beneficient’s representatives before publication, Gladstone persisted in publishing 

these false claims. Similarly, Beneficient and its representatives have continued to point out 

specific defamatory falsehoods in the Article after it was published, but Gladstone and those at the 

Wall Street Journal have instead doubled down, defending the story and refusing to alter or retract 

it. 

50. Gladstone’s unwillingness to deviate from those falsehoods when they were 

pointed out as untrue demonstrate that he had a false, preconceived narrative that he wished to 

present about Heppner and Beneficient from the outset, and that he had no interest in reporting 

facts. 

Heppner, Beneficient, And Their Representatives Inform Gladstone Of 

Serious Errors In The Article Prior To Publication

51. The same day, shortly after receiving Gladstone’s email with his list of defamatory 

falsehoods about Heppner and Beneficient, a representative of Plaintiffs notified Gladstone that 

his email contained items “portrayed without context,” and that “some of the insinuated 

conclusions are not only misleading but materially false. There are also numerous factual 

inaccuracies throughout.” 

52. The representative further advised Gladstone that “it appears your source may have 

given you an internal document that is either is not genuine, incomplete or has otherwise been 

altered to omit key details and/or other information.” The source of the information correcting 

Mr. Gladstone was Heppner, who is based in Texas. 

53. Despite receiving these communications from the representative, Gladstone

responded on July 22, 2023 by doubling down on the false “facts” that he had listed about Heppner

and Beneficient in his first email, and purporting to detail how he had arrived at some of the figures 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 12
13

he had previously mentioned. Gladstone then reiterated that “if Heppner believes that anything is 

inaccurate, he is free to call me,” despite the fact that Gladstone had already been informed that 

much of the information he presented was inaccurate or misleading.

54. On July 23, 2022, Plaintiffs’ representative wrote again to Gladstone, informing 

him that he was missing “a number of key facts that would provide the proper context.”3 The 

email went on to provide Gladstone with some of those facts, including that Heppner “has also 

voluntarily taken $234 million of complete waivers of cash and $26 million deferrals of cash owed 

to him from the combined companies over the prior three years.” 

55. Plaintiffs’ representative explained that this key context demonstrated that “to say 

that [Heppner] was funding his lifestyle through L bond proceeds” he received from Beneficient

“is patently false.” Critically, Plaintiffs’ representative also specifically stated that “the ranch you 

mention was purchased in 2003, 16 years before the formative transaction with GWG[].” 

56. As also noted in July 23 email, most of the information that Plaintiffs’ 

representative provided to Gladstone was “a matter of public record,” and that “to the extent that 

[the] narrative is being informed by a source, it is apparent that the source is selectively providing 

[Gladstone] information based on some personal motivation to do [Heppner] and Ben[eficient]

harm versus a vested interest in complete and accurate reporting of the facts.” 

57. On July 25, 2023, Plaintiffs’ representative again emailed Gladstone and provided 

him with a detailed chart providing corrections and context to Gladstone’s defamatory allegations. 

3 A true and accurate copy of the July 23, 2022 email from Heppner’s representative to Gladstone is attached as 

Exhibit B.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 13
14

He also advised Gladstone that his “story is focused on a limited number of cash flows that advance 

your narrative, rather than all cash flows that paint the full picture.”4

58. As just one example, this July 25, 2023 chart explained that Gladstone’s claim that 

technology assets sold to Beneficient were “over a decade old, and were soon written off,” was 

misleading because those assets “are currently in use and still part of Ben[eficient]’s internal IT 

stack and infrastructure.” In other words, the technology assets that would later become part of 

Gladstone’s defamatory reporting were still in use and still valuable and were written off only for 

accounting purposes. 

59. Plaintiffs’ representative also expressed his disappointment that Gladstone had 

“denied [a] request for more time to respond in good faith to your questions,” despite the fact that 

Gladstone was writing about “highly technical material relating to complex transactions that took 

place many years ago,” which would require “dig[ging] through historic documents and 

assembl[ing] several people to get accurate and complete answers,” and despite the fact that “there 

is no competition on this story, and no news peg.”

60. On July 26, 2022, Gladstone followed up by arguing against the additional facts 

and context that he had been provided by email—rather than acknowledging the facts. 

61. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs’ representative sent Gladstone yet another detailed 

chart that contained necessary context and material facts for Gladstone’s reporting. This email 

explained that Heppner and Beneficient “continue to maintain that your narrative lacks critical 

details and insinuates false conclusions.”5

4 A true and accurate copy of the July 25, 2022 email from Plaintiffs’ representative to Gladstone, including the 

chart refuting the false claims in Gladstone’s outreach, is attached as Exhibit C.

5 A true and accurate copy of the July 27, 2022 email from Plaintiffs’ representative to Gladstone, including the 

chart refuting the false claims in Gladstone’s outreach, is attached as Exhibit D.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 14
15

62. This second chart likewise refuted several misleading and out-of-context 

statements offered by Gladstone. 

63. For example, the July 27, 2022 chart explained that, contrary to Gladstone’s 

assertion that Beneficient had “take[n]” “$230 million from GWG,” GWG’s independent board 

had invested that money into Beneficient to gain exposure to a diversified pool of assets, and to 

simply state that Beneficient had “taken” those funds (which implies an exchange for no value)

was misleading—particularly given that the then-current value of the investment was greater than 

the initial $230 million. 

64. On July 28, 2022, Heppner’s and Beneficient’s representative sent a third chart to 

Gladstone, which explained, critically, that Gladstone’s characterization of the interactions 

between GWG and Beneficient—and the accompanying investment in Beneficient’s business—as 

“Heppner’s takeover” of GWG was “blatantly false.”6

65. This is because, as explained in the July 28, 2022 chart, 1) GWG had decided to 

invest in Beneficient as part of a larger strategy to diversify before Heppner became chairman of 

GWG’s board, 2) special committees of independent directors (which excluded Heppner) 

approved the investments in Beneficient, meaning Heppner never had control or approval rights 

over those transactions, and 3) another entity (Paul Capital and its designees), not Heppner, had 

control of Beneficient, and it was the board, not Heppner, that determined who would be appointed 

to GWG’s board—this was not a decision made by Heppner.

66. On July 28, 2022, Plaintiffs’ representative sent another email to Gladstone, 

explaining that “no money has gone to Heppner nor his immediate or extended family members. 

6 A true and accurate copy of the July 28, 2022 email from Plaintiffs’ representative to Gladstone, including the 

chart refuting the false claims in Gladstone’s outreach, is attached as Exhibit E.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 15
16

It has gone to affiliated and related entities and has been disclosed as such.” Again, the source of 

this information (and all the information in the correspondence above) was Heppner, who was

based in Texas.

Gladstone Knowingly Disregards The Facts 

And Publishes A False And Defamatory Article 

67. On July 29, 2022, despite knowing that the article contained false and defamatory 

statements and implications, especially in light of the communications he had exchanged with 

Plaintiffs’ representative, Gladstone published an article in The Journal titled, “An AssetManagement Merger Ended in Bankruptcy, While Its Architect Got $174 Million” (the “Article”).7

 

68. The Article uses a combination of outright falsehoods, half-truths, and juxtaposed 

facts to create a misleading, false, and defamatory impression about Heppner, Beneficient, and its 

activities in Texas: namely, that they improperly gained control of money from others, including 

from “elderly and retired” “retail investors,” using Heppner’s position at multiple companies and 

improperly used those funds to personally enrich Heppner and enable his supposedly “lavish”

lifestyle, including his purchase of the Ranch and the use of private jets. 

69. Gladstone begins the Article by falsely stating that Heppner became GWG’s 

Chairman by “promis[ing] to reinvigorate the company.” This is false because no such promise 

was made. 

7 Alexander Gladstone, An Asset-Management Merger Ended in Bankruptcy, While Its Architect Got $174 Million, 

The Wall Street Journal (July 29, 2022), https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-asset-management-merger-ended-inbankruptcy-while-its-architect-got-174-million-11659103557. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 16
17

70. Gladstone juxtaposes this supposed “promise” in the next paragraph with the word 

“instead,” followed by the allegation that Heppner “collected . . . $174 million in cash . . . as a 

result of the takeover of GWG that he engineered” before it collapsed. 

71. The clear juxtaposition between the word “promise” and the word “instead” implies 

that Heppner broke the (non-existent) promise to reinvigorate the company. According to the 

Article, the result of Heppner’s actions was that he “le[ft] thousands of individual investors” owing 

more than a billion dollars.

72. Gladstone continues his defamatory insinuations in the next paragraph. 

73. This paragraph asserts that it was Heppner’s “strategy” once “gain[ing] effective 

control of GWG in 2019” to “ramp up” bonds sales to elderly and retired individual investors, and 

then to orchestrate a “transfer[]” of $230 million to Beneficient. 

74. Again, these statements are false and designed to give a false impression. As stated 

before, no corporate action of GWG was “Heppner’s strategy” because he was only one board 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 17 of 36 PageID #: 17
18

member of GWG and not a member of GWG’s management. Each portion of the misleading 

impression is detailed below. 

75. So-called “control.” The allegations that Heppner “engineered a takeover” of 

GWG (from the second paragraph) and that he “gained effective control” of GWG (from the third) 

are each false. At no point did Heppner ever control GWG or own or control a majority of GWG’s 

equity. Heppner did not begin serving on GWG’s board until April 2019, and he never had any 

more voting rights as compared to any other director. Indeed, he held fewer voting rights than 

other directors who served on the GWG’s special committees, as it relates to the determination of 

whether GWG ever invested any cash into Beneficient.

76. These false statements are designed to give the impression that Heppner was pulling 

the strings of GWG while it “transferred” money to Beneficient, and that Beneficient was merely 

a vehicle for Heppner’s self-enrichment. 

77. These false implications are consistent with the overall gist of the Article, which is 

that Beneficient improperly obtained funds from GWG that it then wrongfully distributed to 

Heppner to enable his self-enrichment scheme and his “lavish” lifestyle, all at the expense of 

“elderly and retired” retail investors. 

78. “Transfer” of funds. Similarly, Gladstone’s intentional use of the word “transfer” 

when referring to money flowing to Beneficient from GWG is critical and misleading, as the use 

of the word “transfer” implies that Beneficient improperly obtained GWG’s money as the result 

of an improper or illegitimate transaction orchestrated by Heppner and executed by Beneficient. 

79. In actuality, GWG invested in Beneficient as part of a publicly disclosed business 

strategy, and GWG’s investment in Beneficient, at the time of Gladstone’s Article and tweet, was

worth substantially more than the principal invested. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 18 of 36 PageID #: 18
19

80. But the Article’s reference to a “transfer,” used in conjunction with 1) the 

references to Heppner’s “takeover” and his “effective control” of GWG; 2) the use of money from 

“elderly and retired” individual investors; and 3) the references to bankruptcy in the previous 

paragraph, all suggest that Heppner and Beneficient improperly used the money of elderly and 

retired retail investors to enrich Heppner, to the detriment of those investors.

81. This highly misleading description was written with actual malice. When 

Gladstone asserted pre-publication that Beneficient “need[ed] to take that $230 million from 

GWG[,]” he was explicitly contradicted by Plaintiffs’ representatives and warned the description 

was factually inaccurate—instead, the transaction described was an investment for value—and 

warned that the assertion that Beneficient “took” money from GWG supported a false narrative. 

82. Only two days later, and with full knowledge of the falsity of the assertion,

Gladstone published in the Article that GWG “transferred” $230 million to Beneficient, a 

description virtually identical to his previously debunked position. Despite knowing the truth, 

Gladstone purposefully stuck with his false description because accurately describing the facts 

would not fit within his preconceived narrative and desire to give a misleading and false impression 

about Heppner and Beneficient. 

83. Ranch-Related Falsehoods. Gladstone’s next paragraph explicitly links the socalled “transfer” to Beneficient with alleged personal benefits for Heppner; specifically, that these 

funds supposedly paid for his nearly 1,500-acre Ranch in Texas and “provid[ed] [Heppner] access 

to private jets among other benefits.”

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 19 of 36 PageID #: 19
20

84. These statements are intentionally misleading and add to the misleading and false

nature of the story because they omit critical details necessary to place the statements in context. 

85. The Article implies that the Ranch was paid for with the $230 million GWG 

investment (that Gladstone insisted on calling a “transfer”) and that, therefore, Heppner, aided by 

Beneficient, bought the Ranch with unsuspecting retirees’ hard-earned money. 

86. In reality, the Ranch was purchased in 2003, approximately 15 years prior to any 

investment by GWG in Beneficient. Gladstone was explicitly informed of the large gap in time 

between the GWG transaction and purchase of the Ranch pre-publication, and intentionally chose 

to persist with the highly misleading description. 

87. Additionally, the Ranch was not on Beneficient’s balance sheet when GWG 

invested in Beneficient, having been separated over a year before and publicly disclosed with the 

SEC in audited financial statements and their related notes, as audited by both Whitley Penn and 

Deloitte. 

88. Therefore, the Article’s implication that the Ranch was purchased or funded with 

money from retail investors “transferred” from GWG to Beneficient is false and defamatory. 

89. The Article makes other misleading statements about the Ranch to falsely portray 

Heppner and Beneficient as “fund[ing]” Heppner’s supposed “lavish lifestyle” with the money of 

elderly and retired investors: Gladstone falsely implies that Heppner and Beneficient have been 

misusing the corporate funds of Beneficient and GWG to Heppner’s personal benefit to pay for 

the Ranch.

90. First, the Article claims that “Beneficient took out $20.2 million in additional debt 

that it used to purchase a technology company owned by Heppner . . . [while] the technology assets

were more than a decade old and were soon written off.” 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 20 of 36 PageID #: 20
21

91. Second, the Article claims that Beneficient “distributed to Heppner net assets of 

$59.1 million related to certain ‘ranch and ranch-related business activities,’ and later listed them 

on Beneficient’s income statement as discontinued operations.” 

92. Each of the statements, made in close succession to each other, imply that Heppner

and Beneficient, consistent with the defamatory overall gist of the Article, have repeatedly abused 

corporate funds for Heppner’s benefit, first by having Beneficient purchase a worthless technology 

company from Heppner for $20.2 million, and then by having Heppner take from Beneficient 

$59.1 million of soon-to-be-discontinued Ranch assets. 

93. These statements are false and leave a false impression. This is because, contrary 

to the implication that they are worthless, those technology assets are in fact the foundation for the 

software developed and used by Beneficient to this day for many aspects of Beneficient’s ongoing 

operations, and therefore have considerable value; they were “written off” only for accounting 

purposes because they were not valuable in terms of a third-party sale. 

94. These assets and the related dollar amount were negotiated with large institutional 

third-party investors represented by the largest U.S.-based law firms and then subsequently audited 

to the contract agreements—the opposite of insider transactions.

95. Similarly, the “distribution” that Beneficient made of the Ranch-related assets was 

in the context of the same third-party investment where the third party knew about—and indeed 

insisted on—the separation of the Ranch assets along with Heppner’s family office and related 

investment assets from the ongoing operations of Beneficient. 

96. Therefore, contrary to the implications of the Article, neither transaction was the 

product of any wrongdoing by Heppner or Beneficient. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 21 of 36 PageID #: 21
22

97. Compensation-related falsehoods. The Article also makes misleading statements 

about payments Beneficient made to entities related to Heppner: the Article alleges that 

“Beneficient has also made recurring payments to an entity that Heppner controls [Bradley Capital 

LLC] . . . including for reimbursement for private travel including the family members of 

designated executives . . . for both business and private use,” and that “the money was used to pay 

for Heppner and his family and associates to fly in private jets, including trips to Southern 

California.” 

98. These statements are intended to further the story’s misleading theme that Heppner

and Beneficient’s misuse these corporate funds to enable Heppner’s supposed “lavish lifestyle.” 

Reporting only facts (or partial facts) consistent with this theme was Gladstone’s intention all 

along, as his first written fact check contained references to Heppner’s so-called “lifestyle” that 

demonstrate he had already concluded Beneficient and Heppner were the wrongdoers.

99. These statements are misleading because they omit facts necessary to understand 

them in their proper context; specifically, that Beneficient made the payments to Bradley Capital 

pursuant to six-year-old contracts (that predate any involvement by GWG by years) that were 

created as a substitute for Heppner’s salary and other payments. 

100. It is false and defamatory to imply that Heppner and Beneficient used these 

payments as an improper conduit to enrich Heppner or that those payments have anything to do 

with GWG.

Gladstone Publishes A Defamatory Tweet 

Promoting The July 29, 2022 Wall Street Journal Article

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 22 of 36 PageID #: 22
23

101. On July 29, 2022, the same day he published the Article in The Journal, Gladstone

tweeted the following misleading and defamatory statement:8

102. As stated, the tweet, read either alone or in conjunction with the Article, gives the 

false and misleading impression that Heppner and Beneficient improperly and/or dishonestly used 

money from “elderly and retired” “retail investors” to “fund [Heppner’s] lavish lifestyle,” leaving 

those investors with “up to $1.3 billion in losses.” 

103. This was a false statement of fact designed to give a false impression. The phrase 

“fund his lavish lifestyle” is especially defamatory, because it is commonly understood in context 

8 Ex. A.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 23 of 36 PageID #: 23
24

to imply that Heppner and Beneficient are committing wrongdoing for the self-enrichment of 

Heppner. 

104. Gladstone’s Twitter audience—and others in the community—have taken 

Gladstone’s allegations at face value and now believe that Heppner and Beneficient acted 

improperly. 

105. To name just a few examples, one person on Twitter, upon reading the falsehoods 

contained in the Article and Gladstone’s tweet concluded, in a clear reference to Heppner and 

Beneficient, that “a man with a briefcase can steal more than a man with a gun.”9 The same 

user explicitly tied the Article to corporate malfeasance, stating “I’ve been trading corporates 

for 30 years and I have seen a lot, but I can’t recall a story with so much f***ery baked into 

it as this one.”10 

106. Another prominent Twitter account with more than 30,000 followers republished 

another tweet from Gladstone promoting the Article11 and summarized his conclusion that “Texas 

CEO [Heppner] siphons millions from company to pay for his ranch.”12 

107. Others on social media piled on with “likes” and their own replies, including that 

“the mafia leaves less of a paper trail.”13 There are many other similar sentiments. 

9 The Kingfish (@daKingfish_), Twitter (July 29, 2022), 

https://twitter.com/daKingfish_/status/1553056815574724609. 

10 The actual tweet used an expletive.

11 In addition to Exhibit A, Gladstone published a tweet at 10:25 am on July 29, 2023. The comments referenced in 

paragraphs 105–107 were in response to this 10:25 am tweet, which also linked to the Article and contained 

language substantially similar to Exhibit A. A true and accurate copy of Gladstone’s July 29, 2023, 10:25 am tweet 

is attached as Exhibit F. 

12 Mr. Skilling (@mr_skilling), Twitter (July 29, 2022), 

https://twitter.com/mr_skilling/status/1553173613896941568. This tweet has since been deleted but a copy has 

been saved. 

13 Up and to the Right (@upandtotheright5), Twitter (July 29, 2022), 

https://twitter.com/upandtotherigh5/status/1553184018765533185. This tweet was in response to a substantiallysimilar tweet from Gladstone that Gladstone has since deleted.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 24 of 36 PageID #: 24
25

108. Indeed, these are the natural and predictable responses to Gladstone’s tweet and 

Article, which are designed to cause readers to believe that Heppner and Beneficient steal from 

the elderly to “fund [Heppner’s] lavish lifestyle.” 

109. As a direct result, Heppner and Beneficient has suffered severe reputational damage 

from these falsehoods. 

110. To avoid further harm and repair Heppner’s and Beneficient’s reputations, 

Plaintiffs’ representatives have continued to provide Gladstone with information refuting and 

correcting Gladstone’s claims, but Gladstone has persistently and continuously refused to correct 

or retract the Article or remove the defamatory tweet. 

Heppner and Beneficient Suffer Significant Harm 

Due To Gladstone’s False Accusations

111. Unsurprisingly, Gladstone’s false claims have been extremely damaging to 

Heppner’s and Beneficient’s reputations and business. 

112. As Gladstone specifically intended, his false accusations harmed Heppner’s and 

Beneficient’s reputations with potential investors and business partners, clients, the business 

community, and the general public.

113. As one example, Beneficient, through the work of Heppner and others, has actively 

sought investments from third parties. One group of investors was interested in a potential 

investment in Beneficient but declined, and when so doing, cited the so-called “burn” from the 

“July article” as a reason. The failure to secure investments that Beneficient otherwise would have 

secured but for the defamatory statements has cost Beneficient millions of dollars in lost 

opportunity costs, as well as significant lost time and out of pocket costs. It is also illustrative of 

the harm that the Article has done to Plaintiffs’ reputations. Other investors have similarly 

specifically referenced the Article as a reason they would not invest in Beneficient. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 25 of 36 PageID #: 25
26

114. A second example occurred when a prominent Texas bank was preparing to give 

Beneficient a line of credit that was critically important for Beneficient’s ongoing operations. 

During the approval process, the Article was mentioned as a factor in the relevant credit committee 

subjecting the transaction to additional scrutiny, the bank’s chief credit officer requiring the 

president of the bank to personally approve the transaction, and the application eventually being 

rejected. Because Beneficient failed to receive the line of credit due to the defamatory Article, it 

has had to furlough staff and has suffered other damage. 

115. Beneficient has also suffered significant out of pocket costs spent on public 

relations efforts and similar services due to the defamatory Article. 

116. Furthermore, Heppner’s ability to be elected as a director of the board or into a 

leadership position for other public companies, particularly in finance companies, has been 

impaired.

117. Gladstone’s false and defamatory statements have also harmed Heppner’s and 

Beneficient’s other existing commercial relationships, have harmed their business standing, and 

have impaired their ability to enter into future commercial relationships.

118. Gladstone’s false and defamatory statements have also impaired Heppner’s ability 

to attract co-investors to invest in his various ventures, depriving Heppner of business 

opportunities. 

119. In addition to the reputational harm and detrimental impact on Heppner’s and 

Beneficient’s business and reputations, Plaintiffs have been damaged by having to expend 

resources to respond to these defamatory statements.

120. Gladstone’s actions since the publication of the Article and the associated tweet

have likewise demonstrated that he is engaged in a campaign to defame Heppner and Beneficient. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 26 of 36 PageID #: 26
27

121. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have been forced to bring this suit to vindicate their rights 

and set the record straight.

COUNT ONEDEFAMATION PER SE BY IMPLICATION FOR OVERALL

MEANING (GIST) OF JULY 29, 2022 TWEET

122. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully 

herein.

123. On July 29, 2022, Alexander Gladstone tweeted to his more than 900 followers a 

tweet regarding Plaintiffs. (Ex. A.) The tweet reflected in Exhibit A states that Heppner “used 

money from retail investors to help fund his lavish lifestyle. Those investors, many of them elderly 

and retired, are now facing up to $1.3 billion in losses.” The broadcast of the tweet constitutes

publication to third parties, as the entire Twitter community (and the wider public, including those 

without Twitter accounts) is able to read it. The tweet in full is as follows:

124. The statements are statements of fact of and concerning Heppner and Beneficient.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 27 of 36 PageID #: 27
28

125. The implication (or gist) of the tweet, read as a whole, is that Heppner and 

Beneficient engineered a sham transaction between GWG and Beneficient that allowed Heppner 

to buy the Ranch and use private jets with these wrongfully obtained corporate funds—all at the 

expense of elderly and retired investors who now face $1.3 billion in losses.

126. The tweet is reasonably understood by an objectively reasonable reader as having 

the proposed meaning in the prior paragraph. This is because it is commonly understood that those 

who take the money of elderly and retired persons to “fund [a] lavish lifestyle” are at the least 

dishonest, and are often con men, fraudsters or criminals. In fact, the phrase “fund a lavish 

lifestyle” is often included in news stories and/or criminal indictments relating to fraud.

14

127. The tweet contains ample evidence that Gladstone intended the defamatory 

inference. Gladstone chose to link together intentionally sensational language including, in short 

succession, (a) a reference to elderly and retired individuals; (b) who were now facing up to $1.3 

billion in losses; and that (c) Beneficient provided this money to Heppner to “use[]” their money 

to “fund his lavish lifestyle,” precisely to convey a defamatory inference. Gladstone was making 

a defamatory accusation himself, not merely reporting on the accusations of others. 

128. Furthermore, the tweet does not clearly disclose the factual bases for the 

accusations it impliedly asserts; instead, it misrepresents facts that, if disclosed in the publication, 

14 See, e.g., Influencer Accused of Using Fraud to Fund Lavish Lifestyle, NBC10 Boston (May 12, 2021),

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/instagram-influencer-who-stole-mass-residents-identity-pleads-guilty-to1m-covid-relief-fraud/2989110/ (news report alleging that influencer applied for $900,000 in fraudulent loans to 

“fund lavish lifestyle”); Carol Robinson, Vestavia Hills man must pay $12 million, serve 15 years in father and son 

fraud that funded lavish lifestyle, Advance Local (May 26, 2022), https://www.al.com/news/2022/05/vestavia-hillsman-must-pay-12-million-serve-15-years-in-father-and-son-fraud-that-funded-lavish-lifestyle.html (news report on 

criminal who stole $12 million and was sentenced to 15 years in prison for fraud that “funded lavish lifestyle”); 

Elizabeth Rosner, NY mother and daughter scammed $850K in credit card con to fund lavish lifestyle: indictment, 

NT Post (Aug. 22, 2022), https://nypost.com/2022/08/29/ny-mother-and-daughter-ran-credit-card-charge-scam-tofund-lavish-lifestyle-indictment/ (reporting on indictment alleging credit card con “to fund lavish lifestyle”).

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 28 of 36 PageID #: 28
29

would have disproven the defamatory implication. Indeed, the true facts were explained to 

Gladstone by Plaintiffs’ representative before publication, yet Gladstone chose to ignore the truth. 

129. The statements in the tweet are defamatory as they tend to injure Heppner’s and

Beneficient’s reputations, lower them in the estimation of their community and deter third persons 

from associating or dealing with them, expose them to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and 

financial injury, and impeach their honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputations. 

130. These statements in the tweet are defamatory per se because they allege that 

Heppner and Beneficient are dishonest in their business dealings, engaged in sham transactions to 

enrich Heppner, and/or committed crimes, which injure Heppner and Beneficient in their trade and 

profession. 

131. The defamatory statements in the tweet were made with actual malice regarding the 

truth of the statements. In fact, Plaintiffs’ representative repeatedly communicated with Gladstone 

in order to attempt to correct known misstatements in the underlying Article, providing Gladstone 

with ample amounts of missing facts and context, but those attempted corrections were ignored 

and/or rejected by Gladstone. 

132. Third parties to whom the defamatory material was published understood the tweet 

as asserting that Heppner and Beneficient had committed wrongdoing. On the internet, responses 

to Gladstone’s falsehoods about Beneficient and Heppner contained in the tweet include, but are 

not limited to: 

• “a man with a briefcase can steal more than a man with a gun.”15 

15 The Kingfish (@daKingfish_), Twitter (July 29, 2022), 

https://twitter.com/daKingfish_/status/1553056815574724609. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 29 of 36 PageID #: 29
30

• “Texas CEO [Heppner] siphons millions from company to pay for his ranch.”16 

• “the mafia leaves less of a paper trail.”17 

133. Heppner and Beneficient have also suffered real-world damages due to the tweet, 

as explained in full in paragraphs 111–121. In particular, the tweet has adversely affected 

Heppner’s and Beneficient’s ability to conduct business and otherwise damaged them as stated 

above. 

134. In view of the foregoing, Heppner and Beneficient are entitled to actual, presumed, 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT TWODEFAMATION PER SE BY IMPLICATION FOR OVERALL 

MEANING (GIST) OF THE JULY 29, 2022 WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE 

135. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully 

herein.

136. On July 29, 2022, Gladstone published The Journal article entitled, “An AssetManagement Merger Ended in Bankruptcy, While Its Architect Got $174 Million.” The statements 

in the Article are statements of fact of and concerning Heppner and Beneficient. 

137. The implication (or gist) of the Article, read as a whole, is that Heppner and 

Beneficient engineered a sham transaction between GWG and Beneficient that allowed Heppner 

to buy the Ranch and use private jets with these wrongfully obtained corporate funds—all at the 

expense of elderly and retired investors who now face $1.3 billion in losses. This was a false 

statement of fact by implication.

16 Mr. Skilling (@mr_skilling), Twitter (July 29, 2022), 

https://twitter.com/mr_skilling/status/1553173613896941568. This tweet has since been deleted but a copy has 

been saved. 

17 Up and to the Right (@upandtotheright5), Twitter (July 29, 2022), 

https://twitter.com/upandtotherigh5/status/1553184018765533185. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 30 of 36 PageID #: 30
31

138. The Article can be reasonably understood by an objectively reasonable reader as 

having the proposed meaning in the prior paragraph. This is because, as explained in full above,

the Article selectively uses falsehoods, half-truths, and juxtaposes facts in misleading ways. For 

example:

• The Article falsely claims that Heppner “promised to reinvigorate” GWG but “instead” 

“collected at least $174 million in cash . . . leaving individual investors ow[ing] $1.3 

billion[.]”;

• The Article falsely claims that Heppner and his associates “gained effective control of 

GWG” and then “transferred” $230 million to Beneficient; and

• The Article falsely implies that Heppner had Beneficient improperly pay entities linked to 

Heppner to allow Heppner to use those funds for his own person use, including by allowing 

Heppner, his family, and his associates to enjoy private jets and other lavish benefits.

139. The Article contains ample evidence that Gladstone intended the defamatory

inference by, among other things, juxtaposing facts out of chronological order, stating facts 

without context, and by employing other techniques designed to give a false impression. 

140. Furthermore, the Article does not clearly disclose the factual bases for the 

accusations it impliedly asserts; instead, the Article misrepresents or omits facts that would have 

disproven the defamatory implication. Indeed, many of the true facts were explained to Gladstone

by Plaintiffs’ representative before publication, yet Gladstone chose to ignore the truth. 

141. The defamatory statements are not a recitation of other accusations about Heppner

and Beneficient, but accusations made entirely by Gladstone, despite his knowledge of facts to the 

contrary of the implication that he is trying to make. 

142. The defamatory statements were made with actual malice regarding the truth of the 

statements. Plaintiffs’ representative repeatedly communicated with Gladstone in order to attempt 

to correct known misstatements in the Article and provide the truth, but those attempted corrections 

were ignored and/or rejected by Gladstone. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 31 of 36 PageID #: 31
32

143. These statements are defamatory as they tend to injure Heppner’s and Beneficient’s 

reputations, lower them in the estimation of the community and deter third persons from 

associating or dealing with them, expose them to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and financial 

injury, and impeach their honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputations. 

144. These statements are defamatory per se because they allege that Heppner and 

Beneficient are dishonest, engaged in sham transactions to enrich Heppner, and/or have committed 

crimes, which injure Beneficient and Heppner in their trade and profession. 

145. Heppner and Beneficient have also suffered real-world damages due to the Article, 

as explained in full in paragraphs 111–121. In particular, the Article has adversely affected 

Heppner’s and Beneficient’s ability to conduct business. 

146. In view of the foregoing, Heppner and Beneficient are entitled to actual, presumed, 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT THREEDEFAMATION PER SE BY IMPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC 

STATEMENTS WITHIN THE JULY 29, 2022 WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE 

147. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully 

herein.

148. On July 29, 2022, Gladstone published an article in The Journal entitled, “An 

Asset-Management Merger Ended in Bankruptcy, While Its Architect Got $174 Million.” The 

statements in the Article are statements of fact of and concerning Heppner and Beneficient. 

149. The Article has several specific defamatory statements that are of and concerning 

Heppner and Beneficient, including but not limited to:

• “GWG also transferred $230 million to Beneficient Co. Group LP, a financialservices startup founded and led by Heppner.”

• “Much of those capital contributions from GWG were then distributed to Heppner

and his affiliated business entities, helping him repay debt he had incurred to buy 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 32 of 36 PageID #: 32
33

and develop a nearly 1,500-acre ranch in Texas, and providing him with access to 

private jets among other benefits[.]”

150. These statements were false and/or designed to create a false impression.

151. The first statement is false and defamatory because in the context of the Article, the 

intentional use of the word “transfer” implies that Heppner and Beneficient improperly 

orchestrated a sham payment from GWG that they then wrongfully allocated to enrich Heppner, 

all to the detriment of “elderly and retired” investors. In actuality, the transaction described as a 

“transfer” was an investment for value by GWG in Beneficient that at the time of Gladstone’s 

Article and tweet, had substantially gained in value since it was made. Gladstone intentionally

chose the word “transfer” in order to make it appear that Heppner and Beneficient committed 

wrongdoing in this transaction.

152. The second statement is false and defamatory because it suggests that Heppner and 

Beneficient used the wrongfully obtained funds from the so-called “transfer” for two personal 

benefits directed to Heppner: the purchase and development of the Ranch and access to private 

jets. The words are carefully chosen to give the false impression that Beneficient, at Heppner’s 

direction, transferred the funds to Heppner so he could use the money from the transaction to buy 

and develop the Ranch and gain “access” to private jets, which are collectively referred to by 

Gladstone by tweet as a “lavish lifestyle.” In fact, Heppner owned the Ranch for almost 20 years 

before the relevant transaction. Similarly, Heppner did not “access” private jets because of GWG’s 

investment in Beneficient; he has used private jets for decades, primarily for security reasons. 

153. The Article contains ample evidence that Gladstone intended the defamatory

inference by, among other things, juxtaposing facts out of chronological order, stating facts 

without context, and other techniques designed to give a false impression. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 33 of 36 PageID #: 33
34

154. Each statement in the Article listed in paragraph 149 does not clearly disclose the 

factual bases for the statement it impliedly asserts; instead, it misrepresents facts that, if included,

would have disproven the defamatory implication. 

155. The defamatory statements are not a recitation of other accusations about Heppner

and Beneficient, but accusations made entirely by Gladstone, despite his knowledge of facts to the 

contrary of the implications he is trying to make. 

156. These statements can be reasonably understood by an objectively reasonable reader 

as having the proposed meanings set forth above because, as explained in full above, the Article 

selectively uses falsehoods, half-truths, and juxtaposes facts in misleading ways, and because 

Gladstone was told by Plaintiffs’ representatives that The Journal’s readers would form this 

understanding, which they did then form.

157. The defamatory statements were made with actual malice regarding the truth of the 

statements. Plaintiffs’ representative repeatedly communicated with Gladstone to attempt to 

correct known misstatements in the Article and provide true facts, but those attempted corrections 

were ignored and/or rejected by Gladstone. 

158. These statements are defamatory as they tend to injure Heppner’s and Beneficient’s 

reputations, lower them in the estimation of the community and deter third persons from 

associating or dealing with them, expose them to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and financial 

injury, and impeach their honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputations. 

159. These statements are defamatory per se because they allege that Heppner and 

Beneficient are dishonest, engaged in sham transactions to enrich their Heppner, and/or have 

committed crimes, which injure Heppner and Beneficient in their trade and profession.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 34 of 36 PageID #: 34
35

160. Heppner and Beneficient have also suffered real-world damages due to the Article, 

as explained in full in paragraphs 111–121. In particular, the Article has adversely affected 

Heppner’s and Beneficient’s ability to conduct business, obtain credit, and obtain third party 

investment, and have caused significant out-of-pocket costs. 

161. In view of the foregoing, Heppner and Beneficient are entitled to actual, presumed, 

and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an award in Plaintiff

Brad Heppner’s and Plaintiff Beneficient’s favor, and against Defendant Gladstone, as follows: 

(1) awarding Heppner and Beneficient compensatory damages in an amount to be 

determined; 

(2) awarding Heppner and Beneficient punitive damages in an amount to be 

determined; 

(3) awarding Heppner and Beneficient all expenses and costs, including attorneys’ 

fees; and

(4) such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request a trial 

by jury on all triable issues. 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 35 of 36 PageID #: 35
36

Dated: July 28, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew W. Stinson 

Thomas A. Clare, Lead Attorney (pro hac 

vice forthcoming) 

Virginia State Bar No. 39299 

David Sillers (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Texas State Bar No. 24072341 

Steven J. Harrison (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Virginia State Bar No. 92277 

CLARE LOCKE LLP

10 Prince Street

Alexandria, VA 22314 

202-628-7400 

tom@clarelocke.com 

david@clarelocke.com

steven@clarelocke.com

Andrew W. Stinson 

State Bar No. 24028013 

RAMEY & FLOCK, PC

100 E. Ferguson Street, Suite 500 

Tyler, TX 75702 

903-597-3301 

andys@rameyflock.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Beneficient and 

Brad Heppner

 

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 1 Filed 07/28/23 Page 36 of 36 PageID #: 36