GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE LTD

Any suspension or revocation of any of our licenses would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Greenlight Re is licensed as a reinsurer in both the Cayman Islands and the EEA. We are also licensed to write insurance business in the U.K. and the EEA through our Syndicate 3456. Viridis Re is also licensed as a reinsurer in the Cayman Islands. The suspension or revocation of any of our licenses to do business in either of these jurisdictions for any reason would mean that we would not be able to enter into any new reinsurance contracts in that jurisdiction until the suspension ended or we became licensed in another jurisdiction. The process of obtaining licenses is time-consuming and costly, and we may not be able to become licensed in another jurisdiction in the event we choose to. Any such suspension or revocation of our license would negatively impact our reputation in the (re)insurance marketplace, could have a material adverse effect on any potential license application and would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

CIMA and the CBI may take a number of actions, including suspending or revoking a reinsurance license whenever the regulatory body believes that a licensee is or may become unable to meet its financial obligations, is carrying on business in a manner likely to be detrimental to the public interest or the interest of its creditors or policyholders, has contravened the terms of the Act, or has otherwise behaved in such a manner so as to cause such regulatory body to call into question the licensee’s fitness to conduct regulated activity.

Further, based on statutes, regulations, and policies in their respective jurisdictions, CIMA and CBI may suspend or revoke our licenses if certain events occur, including without limitation:

Similarly, if either CIMA or the CBI suspended or revoked our licenses, we could lose our exemption under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”) (See “—We are subject to the risk of possibly becoming an investment company under U.S. federal securities law.”)

Our reinsurance subsidiaries are subject to minimum capital and surplus requirements, and our failure to meet these requirements could subject us to regulatory action.

The Insurance (Capital and Solvency) (Classes B, C, and D Insurers) Regulations (2018 Revision) (the “Capital and Solvency Regulations”) impose on Greenlight Re as a Class D reinsurer to maintain minimum statutory capital and surplus equal to the greater of: a) the minimum capital requirement of $50 million and b) the prescribed capital requirement and impose on Viridis Re a requirement to maintain minimum statutory capital of $0.2 million for a Class B(iii) general reinsurer and the prescribed capital requirement (the “Capital Requirements”). At December 31, 2024, both Greenlight Re and Viridis Re were in compliance with their respective Capital Requirements - see Note 18 “Statutory Requirements” of the consolidated financial statements.

GRIL, our Irish subsidiary, is required to comply with risk-based solvency requirements under the European legislation known as “Solvency II,” including calculating and maintaining a minimum capital requirement and solvency capital requirement. At December 31, 2024, GRIL’s minimum capital requirement and solvency capital requirement was approximately $9.9 million and $39.8 million, respectively. At December 31, 2024, GRIL was in compliance with the capital requirements required under the Irish Insurance Acts and Regulations.

Any failure to meet applicable requirements or minimum statutory capital requirements could subject us to further examination or action by regulators, including restrictions on dividend payments, limitations on our writing of additional business or engaging in financial or other activities, enhanced supervision, financial or other penalties, or liquidation. Further, any changes in existing risk-based capital requirements or minimum statutory capital requirements may require us to increase our statutory capital levels, which we might be unable to do.

We are a holding company that depends on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends.

We are a holding company and do not have any significant operations or assets other than our ownership of the shares of our subsidiaries. Dividends and other permitted distributions from our subsidiaries are our primary source of funds to meet ongoing cash requirements, including future debt service payments, if any, and other corporate expenses, and to repurchase shares or pay dividends to our shareholders if we choose to do so. Some of our subsidiaries are subject to significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends. The inability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable us to meet our cash requirements at the holding company level could have an adverse effect on our operations and our ability to repurchase shares or pay dividends to our shareholders if we choose to do so and/or meet our debt service obligations, if any.

To the extent any of our subsidiaries located in jurisdictions other than the Cayman Islands consider declaring dividends, such subsidiaries are required to comply with restrictions set forth under applicable law and regulations in such other jurisdictions. These restrictions could adversely impact the Company.

We are subject to the risk of possibly becoming an investment company under U.S. federal securities law.

In the United States, the Investment Company Act regulates certain companies that invest in or trade securities. We rely on an exemption under the Investment Company Act for an entity organized and regulated as a foreign insurance company which is engaged primarily and predominantly in the reinsurance of risks on insurance agreements. As we hold ourselves out as a global specialty property and casualty reinsurer and we do not propose to engage primarily in the business of investing or trading in securities, we believe the exemption applies. Accordingly, we do not believe that we are, or are likely to become in the future, an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

Nonetheless, the law in this area is not well developed, and there is a lack of definitive guidance as to the meaning of “primarily and predominantly” under the relevant exemption to the Investment Company Act. If this exemption were deemed inapplicable, we would have to register under the Investment Company Act as an investment company. Registered investment companies are subject to extensive, restrictive, and potentially adverse regulation relating to, among other things, operating methods, management, capital structure, leverage, dividends, and transactions with affiliates. Registered investment companies are not permitted to operate their business in the manner in which we operate our business, nor are registered investment companies permitted to have many of the relationships that we have with our affiliated companies. Any changes to our investment strategy necessitated by being labeled a registered investment company could materially and adversely impact our investment results, financial condition, and ability to implement our business strategy.

If at any time it were established that we had been operating as an investment company in violation of the registration requirements of the Investment Company Act, there would be a risk, among other material adverse consequences, that we could become subject to monetary penalties or injunctive relief, or both, or that we would be unable to enforce contracts with third parties or that third parties could seek to obtain rescission of transactions with us undertaken during the period in which it was established that we were an unregistered investment company.

To the extent that the laws and regulations change in the future so that contracts we write are deemed not to be reinsurance contracts, we will be at greater risk of not qualifying for the Investment Company Act exception. Additionally, it is possible that our classification as an investment company would result in the suspension or revocation of our reinsurance license.

Insurance regulations to which we are, or may become, subject, and potential changes thereto, could have a significant and negative effect on our business.

We currently are admitted to do reinsurance business in the Cayman Islands and the EEA. We are also licensed to write insurance business in the U.K. and the EEA through our Syndicate 3456. Our operations in these jurisdictions are subject to varying degrees of regulation and supervision. The laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our subsidiaries are domiciled require that, among other things, these subsidiaries maintain minimum levels of statutory or regulatory capital, surplus, and liquidity, meet solvency standards, submit to periodic examinations of their financial condition, and restrict payments of dividends and reductions of capital. Statutes, regulations, and policies that our subsidiaries are subject to may also restrict the ability of these subsidiaries to write insurance and reinsurance policies, make certain investments, and distribute funds.

More specifically, with respect to GRIL, Solvency II governs the prudential regulation of insurers and reinsurers, and requires insurers and reinsurers in Europe to meet risk-based solvency requirements. It also imposes group solvency and governance requirements on groups with insurers and/or reinsurers operating in the EEA. A number of European Commission delegated acts and technical standards have been adopted, which set out more detailed requirements based on the overarching provisions of the Solvency II Directive. However, further delegated acts, technical standards, and guidance are likely to be published on an ongoing basis.

Although we presently are admitted to do business in the Cayman Islands, U.K. and the EEA, we cannot provide assurance that insurance regulators in the United States or elsewhere will not review our activities and claim that we are subject to such jurisdiction’s licensing requirements. In addition, we are subject to indirect regulatory requirements imposed by jurisdictions that may limit our ability to provide reinsurance. For example, our ability to write reinsurance may be subject, in certain cases, to arrangements satisfactory to applicable regulatory bodies, and proposed legislation and regulations may have the effect of imposing additional requirements upon, or restricting the market for, non-U.S. reinsurers such as Greenlight Re and GRIL, with whom domestic companies may place business. We do not know of any such proposed legislation pending at this time.

We may not be able to comply fully with, or obtain desired exemptions from, revised statutes, regulations, and policies that currently, or may in the future, govern the conduct of our business. Failure to comply with, or to obtain desired authorizations and/or exemptions under, any applicable laws could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or undertake activities that are regulated in one or more of the jurisdictions in which we operate and could subject us to fines and other sanctions. The

MAA includes amendments that provide for a specific administrative fines framework whereby CIMA has been granted the power to issue monetary penalties of up to 1 million Cayman Islands Dollars for a very serious breach.

In addition, governmental authorities worldwide have become increasingly interested in potential risks posed by the insurance industry as a whole, and to the commercial and financial systems in general. While we cannot predict the exact nature, timing, or scope of possible governmental initiatives, there may be increased regulatory intervention in our industry in the future. Changes in the laws or regulations to which our subsidiaries are subject or may become subject, or in the interpretations thereof by enforcement or regulatory agencies, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

There are differences between Cayman Islands corporate law and Delaware corporate law with respect to interested party transactions, which may benefit certain of our shareholders at the expense of other shareholders.

As a matter of Cayman Islands law, a director of a Cayman Islands company is in the position of a fiduciary with respect to the company and therefore it is considered that they owe certain duties to the company, including the following: a duty to act in good faith and in what they consider to be in the best interests of the company; a duty not to make a profit out of their position as director (unless the company permits them to do so); a duty to exercise their powers for the purposes for which they are conferred; and a duty not to put themselves in a position where the interests of the company conflict with their personal interest or their duty to a third party. A director of a Cayman Islands company owes to the company a duty to act with skill and care. A director will need to exhibit in the performance of their duties both the degree of skill that may reasonably be expected from a subjective perspective determined by reference to their knowledge and experience and the skill and care objectively to be expected from a person occupying office as a director of the company.

Under Cayman Islands corporate law and pursuant to our Articles, a director may vote on a contract or transaction where the director has an interest as a shareholder, director, officer, or employee, provided such interest is duly disclosed to the Board. In exercising any such vote, such director's duties remain as described above. Pursuant to our Articles none of our contracts will be deemed to be void purely because any director is an interested party in such transaction and in such circumstances, interested parties will generally not be held liable for monies owed to the Company. Under Delaware law, interested party transactions are voidable.

A failure by our Syndicate 3456 to comply with rules and regulations could materially and adversely interfere with our business strategy.

Syndicate 3456 is subject to Lloyd’s oversight. The PRA and the FCA regulate all financial services firms in the U.K., including Lloyd’s and Syndicate 3456. Both the PRA and the FCA have substantial powers of intervention in relation to Lloyd’s Syndicates, including the power to remove Lloyd’s authorization to manage such Syndicates. See “— Item 1. Business —Regulations — UK Regulations” for further discussion of such regulations.

Failure to comply with, or any future regulatory changes or rulings to, the regulations of the PRA and/or the FCA could interfere with the business strategy of Syndicate 3456, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Relating to Our Solasglas Investment Strategy

Our investment performance depends in part on the performance of Solasglas and may suffer as a result of adverse in financial markets or other factors that impact Solasglas’ liquidity.

Our operating results depend in part on the performance of Solasglas. We cannot provide assurance that DME Advisors, on behalf of Solasglas, will successfully structure investments in relation to our liquidity needs or liabilities. Failure to do so could force us to make redemptions from Solasglas that cause DME Advisors to liquidate investments at a significant loss or at prices that are not optimal, which could materially and adversely affect our financial results.

The risks associated with Solaglas’ value-oriented investment strategy may be substantially greater than the risks associated with traditional fixed-income investment strategies. In addition, long equity investments may generate losses if the market declines. Similarly, short equity investments may generate losses in a rising market. The success of the Solasglas investment strategy may also be affected by general economic conditions. Unexpected market volatility and illiquidity associated with our investment in Solasglas could materially and adversely affect our investment results, financial condition, or results of operations.

Solasglas may be concentrated in a few large positions, which could result in material adverse valuation movements.

Our Board of Directors has adopted our investment guidelines, which provide that Solasglas may not commit more than, 10% of Greenlight Re Surplus (as defined in the Solasglas LPA) and 7.5% of GRIL Surplus (as defined in the Solasglas LPA) to any single investment, unless a waiver has been obtained by the Board of Directors of Greenlight Re or GRIL, as applicable. At December 31, 2024, we were in compliance with these investment guidelines.

In addition, GRIL’s investment guidelines require that the ten largest investments shall not constitute more than 40% of the GRIL Surplus, and GRIL’s investment portfolio shall at all times, unless waived by the GRIL board of directors, be composed of a minimum of 50 debt or equity securities of publicly traded companies. From time to time, Solasglas may hold a small number of relatively large security positions in relation to our capital accounts. Since Solasglas may not be widely diversified by security or by industry, it may be subject to more rapid changes in value than would be the case if our investment portfolio were required to maintain a wide diversification among companies, securities industries, and types of securities.

Under the Solasglas LPA, we are contractually obligated to invest substantially all our assets in Solasglas with certain exceptions. Solasglas’ performance depends on the ability of DME Advisors to select and manage appropriate investments.

DME Advisors acts as the exclusive investment advisor for Solasglas. Apart from funds required for collateral purposes, funds allocated to our Innovations investment strategy, risk management, and other operational needs, we are contractually obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to cause substantially all investable assets of Greenlight Re and GRIL to be contributed to Solasglas. Although DME Advisors is contractually obligated to follow the investment guidelines of both Greenlight Re and GRIL, we cannot provide assurance as to how DME Advisors will allocate our investable assets to different investment opportunities.

The performance of the Solasglas investment portfolio depends to a great extent on the ability of DME Advisors to select and manage appropriate investments for Solasglas. We cannot assure you that DME Advisors will successfully meet our investment objectives and the failure of DME Advisors to perform adequately could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

We have limited control over Solasglas and Solasglas LPA limits our ability to use another investment manager.

Under the Solasglas LPA, subject to our investment guidelines and certain other conditions, DME II, as the general partner of Solasglas, has complete and exclusive power and responsibility for all investment and investment management decisions to be undertaken on behalf of Solasglas and for managing and administering the affairs of Solasglas. As a result, we have limited control over Solasglas and there can be no assurance that the interests of DME II in managing Solasglas will always be aligned with our interests. In addition, the Solasglas LPA contains exclusivity and limited termination provisions which severely restricts our ability to use other investment managers for so long as Greenlight Re and GRIL are limited partners in Solasglas. Greenlight Re and GRIL, as limited partners of Solasglas may withdraw upon notice only on the Greenlight Re Relevant Date or the GRIL Relevant Date or “for cause” (each as defined in the Solasglas LPA). Additionally, while GRIL has the right to withdraw as a limited partner in Solasglas due to unsatisfactory long-term performance of DME II or DME Advisors, as determined solely by the Board of Directors of GRIL at the end of each fiscal year during the term of the Solasglas LPA, Greenlight Re does not have this right.

The historical performance of DME Advisors and its affiliates should not be considered indicative of the future results of the Solasglas investment portfolio, our future results, or any returns expected on our ordinary shares.

The historical returns of Solasglas and other funds managed by DME Advisors and its affiliates are not directly linked to our ordinary shares. Results for the Solasglas investment portfolio could differ from those of other funds managed by DME Advisors and its affiliates due to restrictions imposed by our investment guidelines and other factors.

Potential conflicts of interest with DME Advisors and its affiliates may exist that could adversely affect us.

DME Advisors and its affiliates, in addition to managing Solasglas, may engage in investment and trading activities for their own accounts and/or for the accounts of third parties. None of DME Advisors or its affiliates, including David Einhorn, Chairman of our Board of Directors and the President of Greenlight Capital, Inc., is obligated to devote any specific amount of time, effort or allocation, or prioritize any investment opportunity, to Solasglas or to address possible or actual conflicts among the accounts they may manage, which may adversely affect Solasglas’ investment returns, and, correspondingly, our investment returns.

In addition, under Cayman Islands laws, Mr. Einhorn is not legally restricted from making decisions with respect to Greenlight Re’s investment guidelines. Accordingly, his involvement as a member of the Boards of Directors of Greenlight Capital Re and Greenlight Re may lead to a conflict of interest.

DME Advisors and its affiliates may also manage accounts whose advisory fee schedules, investment objectives, and policies differ from those of Solasglas, which may cause DME Advisors and its affiliates to effect trading in one account that may have an adverse effect on another account, including Solasglas.

Certain investments made by Solasglas may have limited liquidity and lack valuation data which could create a conflict of interest.

Our investment guidelines allow Solasglas to invest in certain securities with limited liquidity or no public market. This lack of liquidity may adversely affect the ability of Solasglas to execute trade orders at desired prices and may impact our ability to fulfill our underwriting payment obligations. To the extent that Solasglas invests in securities or instruments for which market quotations are not readily available, the valuation of such securities and instruments for purposes of compensation will be determined by DME Advisors, whose determination, subject to audit verification, will be conclusive and binding in the absence of bad faith or manifest error.

If DME Advisor’s risk management methodologies are ineffective, we may be exposed to material unanticipated losses.

DME Advisors and its affiliates continually refine its risk management techniques, strategies, and assessment methods. However, its risk management techniques and strategies do not fully mitigate the risk exposure of its funds and managed accounts, including Solasglas, in all economic or market environments or against all types of risk, including risks that it might fail to identify or anticipate. Any failures in DME Advisors’ risk management techniques and strategies to accurately quantify risk exposure could affect the risk-adjusted returns of Solasglas. In addition, any risk management failures could cause losses to be significantly greater than historical measures predict. DME Advisors’ approach to managing those risks could prove insufficient, exposing Solasglas, and correspondingly our Solasglas investment portfolio, to material unanticipated or material losses.

The compensation arrangements of Solasglas may create an incentive to effect transactions that are risky or speculative.

Pursuant to the Solasglas LPA, each of Greenlight Re and GRIL is obligated to pay a performance allocation of 20% to DME II at the end of each performance period based on its positive performance change to its capital account, subject to a modified loss carry forward provision.

The loss carry forward provision contained in the Solasglas LPA allows DME II to earn a reduced performance allocation of 10% of profits in any year subsequent to the year in which Solasglas has incurred a loss until all losses are recouped and an additional amount equal to 150% of the loss is earned.

While the performance compensation arrangement contained in the Solasglas LPA provides that losses will be carried forward as an offset against net profits in subsequent periods, DME II and DME Advisors generally will not otherwise be penalized for losses or decreases in the value of our portfolio under the Solasglas LPA. These performance compensation arrangements may incentivize DME Advisors to engage in transactions that focus on the potential for short-term gains rather than long-term growth or that are particularly risky or speculative.

DME Advisors’ representatives’ service on boards and committees may place trading restrictions on our investments and may subject us to indemnification liability.

DME Advisors may, from time to time, place its or its affiliates’ representatives on creditors’ committees and/or boards of certain companies in which Solasglas has invested. While such representation may enable DME Advisors to enhance the sale value of Solasglas’ investments, it may also prevent Solasglas from freely disposing of investments. The IAA provides for the indemnification of DME Advisors or any other person designated by DME Advisors for claims arising from such board representation.

We and Solasglas are exposed to credit risk from counterparties that may default on their obligations to us.

We and Solasglas are exposed to credit risk from counterparties that may default on their obligations to us or it. The amount of the maximum exposure to credit risk is indicated by the carrying value of our and Solasglas’ financial assets. In addition, Solasglas holds the securities of our investment portfolio with prime brokers and has credit risk from the possibility that one or more of them may default on their obligations to Solasglas.

Issuers or borrowers whose securities or debt Solasglas holds, customers, reinsurers, clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses, and other financial intermediaries and guarantors may default on their obligations to us and/or Solasglas due to bankruptcy, insolvency, lack of liquidity, adverse economic conditions, operational failure, fraud or other reasons. Such defaults could have a significant and negative effect on us and/or Solasglas and, correspondingly, our investment portfolio and our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Solasglas effectuates short sales that subject our capital accounts to material and adverse loss potential.

Solasglas enters into transactions in which it sells a security it does not own, which we refer to as a short sale, in anticipation of a decline in the market value of the security. Short sales subject our capital accounts in Solasglas to material and adverse loss potential since the market price of securities sold short may continuously increase. Short sales may result in a substantial loss and may expose us to a loss exceeding the original amount invested.

Short-sale transactions have been subject to increased regulatory scrutiny and Solasglas’ ability to execute a short selling strategy may be materially and adversely impacted by new rules, interpretations, prohibitions, and restrictions adopted in response to adverse market events.

As a result, Solasglas may be unable to effectively pursue a short-selling strategy which may adversely affect Solasglas’ investment returns, and correspondingly, our investment returns.

Solasglas may trade on margin and use other forms of financial leverage, which may increase the risk of our investment portfolio.

Our investment guidelines allow Solasglas to trade on margin and use other forms of financial leverage. Solasglas relies on prime brokers to extend leverage and such prime brokers may elect not to provide leverage to Solasglas. Fluctuations in the market value of our investment in Solasglas could have a disproportionately large effect in relation to our capital. Any event which may adversely affect the value of positions Solasglas holds could materially and adversely affect the net asset value of our investment portfolio and our results of operations.

Solasglas may transact in derivatives trading, which may increase the risks associated with our investment portfolio.

Derivative instruments, or derivatives, include futures, options, swaps, structured securities, and other instruments and contracts that derive their value from one or more underlying securities, financial benchmarks, currencies, commodities, or indices. There are a number of risks associated with derivatives trading. Because many derivatives are leveraged, a relatively small adverse market movement may result in a substantial loss and may expose us to a loss exceeding the original amount invested. Derivatives may also expose Solasglas, and correspondingly, our investment portfolio, to liquidity risk as there may not be a liquid market within which to close or dispose of outstanding derivative contracts. The counterparty risk lies with each party with whom Solasglas contracts for the purpose of making derivative investments. In the event of the counterparty’s default, Solasglas will generally only rank as an unsecured creditor and risk the loss of all or a portion of the amounts Solasglas is contractually entitled to receive.