Updated on September 3, 2026 at 3:00 pm

Download: ABACUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Download: ABACUS’S PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (REDLINED)

Download: COVENTRY’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ABACUS’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS AMENDED COMPLAINT

---

COVENTRY AND BUERGER FILE FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Updated on August 24, 2026 at 11:00 am

On August 20, 2026, Coventry First LLC and its co-founder and Executive Chairman, Alan Buerger, filed amended counterclaims against Abacus Global Management, Inc. and Abacus’s Chairman and CEO, Jay Jackson, in Abacus Global Management, Inc. v. Coventry First LLC, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Principal allegations as pleaded

• Lapetus relationship. Abacus invested $1 million in Lapetus Solutions, Inc. and obtained a board seat filled by Jackson. Jackson is alleged to have served as a voting Lapetus director from November 2021 to November 2024 while an officer and director of Abacus. Jackson is also alleged to have resigned from Lapetus’s Board mere days after his Board seat was publicly disclosed.
• Valuation inputs. Coventry and Buerger allege that Abacus used systematically short Lapetus life expectancies to value its policy portfolio, citing Abacus’s internal valuation memorandum, internal Abacus correspondence, and documents from former auditor Grant Thornton.
• Coventry studies. A Coventry study announced May 7, 2024 found Lapetus LEs shorter in approximately 85% of paired comparisons; a study by Professors Daniel Bauer and Nan Zhu announced July 22, 2024 reported 83% of cases by an average of roughly 29 months; a February 5, 2025 update reported a 31% actual-to-expected ratio.
• Discount rate. The pleading chronicles Abacus’s disclosed discount rate declining from 21% (August 2024 10-Q) to 10% (May 2026 10-Q) across seven filings, and alleges the reductions produced more than $100 million in reported growth.
• Related-party sales. Coventry and Buerger allege more than 90% of recent policy sales were to Abacus-managed funds, citing Abacus’s Q2 2026 10-Q (Aug. 10, 2026) for a figure of nearly 93% for the quarter.
• Regulatory history. The pleading references Abacus’s statement that after the SEC reviewed its November 4, 2024 responses to an SEC comment letter, the SEC did not again raise any concerns about its valuation methodology or the relationship between Abacus and Lapetus, and points out that on August 15, 2025, the SEC delivered another comment letter to Abacus that specifically asked about Abacus’s “relationship with Lapetus” as well as “whether any of your directors or officers have any interest in any of the medical underwriting firms.”
• Origin of the dispute. Morpheus Research published a report on Abacus on June 4, 2025; Abacus issued a responsive press release on June 10, 2025, and filed this action. Coventry and Buerger allege no contact with Morpheus before its report and cite corroborating deposition testimony from a Morpheus representative.
• Statements at issue in Count IV. Drawn from Abacus press releases of July 1, 2025 and August 4, 2026 and from Jackson’s statements to trade publications in October 2025, July 2026 and August 2026.

The amended pleading asserts five causes of action

• Count I — Florida Anti-SLAPP Act, Fla. Stat. § 768.295 (against Abacus).
• Count II — Florida Viatical Settlements Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 626.991–993 — fraudulent viatical settlement act (against Abacus and Jackson).
• Count III — Florida Viatical Settlements Act — prohibited relationship with a life expectancy provider, Fla. Stat. § 626.99175(6) (against Abacus and Jackson).
• Count IV — Defamation per se (against Abacus and Jackson), based on seven identified statements.
• Count V — Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201–213 (against Abacus and Jackson).

Relief requested

• Coventry and Buerger seek judgment on all counts; compensatory damages, including damages for alleged reputational harm and lost profits in an amount to be proven at trial; attorneys’ fees and costs associated with defending the underlying lawsuit; punitive damages; sanctions against Abacus and its counsel; an order requiring retraction of the challenged statements; pre- and post-judgment interest; and other appropriate legal or equitable relief. They demand a jury trial on all triable issues.

Links to Court Documents

Coventry’s First Amended Counterclaims can be found here:

Download: Amended Counterclaims

---

COURT UNSEALS KEY EVIDENCE IN COVENTRY FILING SHOWING ABACUS GLOBAL MANAGEMENT RELIED ON SHORT LAPETUS LIFE EXPECTANCY ESTIMATES AND MISLED INVESTORS

Updated on August 4, 2026 at 10:12 am

Lapetus Filings With the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation Reveal an Alarmingly Low 41.5% Actual-to-Expected Ratio

Abacus Misled Its Investors by Concealing Critical Facts About the Lewis & Ellis Valuation Report It Had Commissioned

Coventry First LLC (“Coventry”) and its Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, Alan H. Buerger, secured a significant ruling in their ongoing litigation with Abacus Global Management Inc. (“Abacus”) (NYSE: ABX). On July 29, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ordered the unsealing of a number of key documents that Abacus has tried to keep from becoming public, including internal Abacus records demonstrating that Abacus knowingly relied on unusually short life expectancy estimates from Lapetus Solutions (“Lapetus”) and omitted critical facts from its public description of the Lewis & Ellis valuation report it commissioned.

Coventry Refiles Answer and Counterclaims with Newly Unsealed Evidence

In accordance with the Court’s ruling, Coventry and Mr. Buerger yesterday refiled their Answer and Counterclaims against Abacus with the newly unsealed exhibits. These exhibits provide further support for Coventry’s claims that Abacus has misled investors and the public about its reliance on Lapetus’s life expectancy estimates as a critical input used to originate, sell, and value life settlement policies held in Abacus’s own portfolio and sold to its affiliated managed funds, including funds in which credit unions invested more than $500 million.

Unsealed Documents Show Lapetus’s Actual-to-Expected (A/E) Ratio Was Just 41.5%

Abacus has asserted in its legal filings that Lapetus’s life expectancies are “not less accurate than the estimates of any other life expectancy provider” and that “Lapetus’s estimates reported to the state of Florida are in line with other life expectancy providers.” However, the newly unsealed evidence shows that those statements were false and that Abacus knew they were false. In fact, Lapetus reported an A/E ratio of just 41.5%, meaning that fewer than half of the deaths Lapetus predicted occurred during the measurement period. By comparison, leading life expectancy providers have publicly reported A/E ratios close to 100%. This stark difference proves that Lapetus systematically underestimated life expectancies and overstated mortality risk.

Documents Show Abacus Knew Lapetus’s Life Expectancy Estimates Were Chronically Short

Other unsealed documents show that Abacus was aware of the disparity between Lapetus’s life expectancy estimates and those of other medical underwriters. In one newly unsealed email exchange, Abacus CEO Jay Jackson discussed a policy for which three established life expectancy providers produced life expectancy estimates ranging from 209 to 248 months, while Lapetus estimated just 72 months. Observing that the initial policy valuations looked “really high,” Mr. Jackson asked, “Is that because we did Lapetus only?” In another example, the newly unsealed documents reveal correspondence from experienced life settlement investors discussing their unwillingness to purchase life settlement policies from Abacus using pricing based on Lapetus because, as one investor put it, “they usually seem significantly shorter than the other more established LE providers (as I’m sure you’re well aware!).”

Lapetus’s Former CEO Said He Could No Longer Work with Abacus in Good Faith

Similar concerns were expressed by Lapetus’s former CEO in a text message that he sent to a Lapetus Board member regarding his intent to resign. In that message, which is one of the exhibits to the Answer, the Lapetus executive wrote, “I can’t continue to work with [Abacus] in good faith. I don’t trust them. Since they’re our primary and basically only client, I can no longer lead this business.”

Abacus Issued Misleading Press Release About the Lewis & Ellis Report

On June 10, 2025, in an effort to reassure investors following an independent short-seller report from Morpheus Research, Abacus issued a press release about a valuation report it commissioned from actuarial firm Lewis & Ellis. According to Abacus, the Lewis & Ellis report was prepared without reliance on Lapetus’s life expectancies and produced a portfolio valuation within 1% of Abacus’s stated valuation. However, the exhibits to the Answer show that Abacus omitted or misrepresented at least three critical facts about the report:

• First, Abacus instructed Lewis & Ellis to provide valuations at multiple discount rates; however, the Lewis & Ellis valuation that Abacus cited as supporting its portfolio valuation was calculated using a lower discount rate than Abacus had used for its own valuation, thereby generating a valuation millions of dollars higher. Had Abacus referenced the Lewis & Ellis valuation calculated using Abacus’s discount rate, the resulting valuation would not have been within 1% as Abacus claimed.

• Second, Abacus failed to disclose that for more than one-third of the policies it asked Lewis & Ellis to value, Abacus provided only its own “internal” life expectancy estimates rather than estimates prepared by independent third-party providers, thereby compromising the independence and reliability of the inputs used in the Lewis & Ellis analysis. Abacus also failed to disclose that Lewis & Ellis expressly cautioned that these so-called “internal” estimates “would not be as utilized within the industry, as the industry may rely on the more Commercial LE opinions.”

• Third, Abacus failed to provide Lewis & Ellis with all the life expectancy estimates in its possession for the policies under review, despite Lewis & Ellis’s stated assumption in the report that Abacus had provided “all relevant life expectancy information produced for an insured from various LE providers.” In several instances, Abacus provided older — and shorter — life expectancy estimates while withholding more recent — and longer — estimates already in its possession. By supplying older, shorter estimates for several of its largest policies, Abacus caused those policies’ valuations to be significantly inflated.

Several other key documents that contradict Abacus’s public statements remain sealed. Coventry will continue to press for all relevant information to be made public.

Links to Court Documents

Coventry’s refiled Answer and Counterclaims can be found here:

Download: Answer

Download: Counterclaims

Download: Exhibits 1-25

Download: Exhibits 26-49

* * * * *

About Coventry

Coventry is the leader and creator of the secondary market for life insurance. For more than 25 years, we have been driving the industry forward and expanding opportunities for life insurance policyowners. Coventry’s deep experience combined with a fierce commitment to consumer rights makes Coventry the clear market leader, a position we use to raise industry standards and expand consumer choice. To date, we have delivered more than $6 billion to policyowners who no longer have a need for their policies. To learn more about Coventry, please visit Coventry.com.