HA Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.

Previous wording

Many traditional sources of energy such as coal, petroleum-based fuels and natural gas can be influenced by the price of underlying or substitute commodities. Such prices, which have decreased and may continue to decrease, may reduce the demand for energy efficiency projects or other projects, including renewable energy facilities, that do not rely on fossil fuel energy sources. For example, low natural gas prices may reduce the demand for projects like renewable energy that can substitute for natural gas. Low natural gas prices also typically adversely affect both the price available to renewable energy projects under future power sale agreements and the price of the electricity the projects sell on either a forward or a spot-market basis. Further, as has occurred in the past, technological progress in electricity generation, storage or in the production of traditional fuels or the discovery of large new deposits of traditional fuels could reduce the cost of energy generated from those sources and consequently reduce the demand for the types of projects in which we invest, which could harm our new business origination prospects as well as the value of our existing Portfolio. In addition, volatility in commodity prices, including energy prices, may cause building owners and other parties to be reluctant to commit to projects for which repayment is based upon a fixed monetary value for energy savings that would not decline if the price of energy declines. Any resulting decline in demand for our investments or the price that industry participants receive for the sale of fossil fuel could adversely impact our operating results.

Current wording

Many traditional sources of energy such as coal, petroleum-based fuels and natural gas can be influenced by the price of underlying or substitute commodities. Such prices, which have in the past, and may in the future, decrease, may reduce the demand for energy efficiency projects or other projects, including renewable energy facilities, that do not rely on fossil fuel energy sources. For example, low natural gas prices may reduce the demand for renewable energy projects that can substitute for natural gas. Low natural gas prices also typically adversely affect both the price available to renewable energy projects under future power sale agreements and the price of the electricity operating projects sell on either a forward or a spot-market basis. Further, as has occurred in the past, technological progress in electricity generation, storage or production of traditional fuels or the discovery of large new deposits of traditional fuels could reduce the cost of energy generated from those sources and consequently reduce the demand for the types of projects in which we invest, which could harm our new business origination prospects as well as the value of our existing Portfolio. In addition, volatility in commodity prices, including energy prices, may cause building owners and other parties to be reluctant to commit to projects for which repayment is based upon a fixed monetary value for energy savings that would not decline if the price of energy declines. Any resulting decline in demand for our investments or the price that industry participants receive for the sale of fossil fuel could adversely impact our operating results.

Previous wording

The market for various types of climate solutions projects is emerging and rapidly evolving, leaving their future success uncertain. If some or all market segments or investing techniques prove unsuitable for widespread commercial deployment or if demand for such projects or techniques fail to grow sufficiently, the demand for our capital may decline or develop more slowly than we anticipate. Many factors will influence the widespread adoption and demand for such projects and investing techniques, including general and local economic conditions, commodity prices of fossil fuel energy sources, the cost and availability of energy storage, the cost-effectiveness of various projects and techniques, performance and reliability of such technologies compared to conventional power sources and technologies, and the extent of government subsidies and regulatory developments. Any changes in the markets, products, technologies, financing techniques, or the regulatory environment could adversely impact the demand or financial performance for such projects and our investments.

Current wording

The market for various types of climate solutions projects is emerging and rapidly evolving, leaving the future success of such projects uncertain. If some or all market segments or investing techniques prove unsuitable for widespread commercial deployment or if demand for such projects or techniques fail to grow sufficiently, the demand for our capital may decline or develop more slowly than we anticipate. Many factors will influence the widespread adoption and demand for such projects and investing techniques, including general and local economic conditions, commodity prices of fossil fuel energy sources, the cost and availability of energy storage, the cost-effectiveness of various projects and techniques, performance and reliability of such technologies compared to conventional power sources and technologies, and the extent of government subsidies and regulatory developments. Any changes in the markets, products, technologies, financing techniques, or the regulatory environment could adversely impact the demand or financial performance for such projects and our investments.

Previous wording

There has been a nationwide increase in distributed generation which has prompted discussions among policy makers and regulators regarding ways to both better integrate distributed energy resources into the electric grid and how to compensate distributed generators. Many states have a regulatory policy known as net energy metering, or net metering. Net metering typically allows some project customers to interconnect their on-site solar or other renewable energy systems to the utility grid and offset their utility electricity purchases by receiving a bill credit at the utility’s retail rate for the amount of energy in excess of their electric usage that is generated by their renewable energy system and is exported to the grid. At the end of the billing period, the customer simply pays for the net energy used or receives a credit at the retail rate if more energy is produced than consumed. Net metering policies are under review or have been limited or amended in a number of states. The ability and willingness of customers to pay for renewable energy systems that benefit from net metering rules may be reduced if net metering rules are eliminated or their benefits reduced, which may also impact our returns on such systems.

Current wording

14 - and offset their utility electricity purchases by receiving a bill credit at the utility’s retail rate for the amount of energy in excess of their electric usage that is generated by their renewable energy system and is exported to the grid. At the end of the billing period, the customer pays for the net energy used or receives a credit at the retail rate if more energy is produced than consumed. Net metering policies are under review or have been limited or amended in a number of states. The ability and willingness of customers to pay for renewable energy systems that benefit from net metering rules may be reduced if net metering rules are eliminated or their benefits reduced, which may also impact our returns on such systems.

Previous wording

Federal, state and local government regulations and policies concerning the electric utility industry, and internal policies and regulations promulgated by electric utilities, heavily influence the market for electricity products and services. These regulations and policies often relate to electricity pricing and the interconnection of customer-owned electricity generation. In the United States, governments and utilities continuously modify these regulations and policies. These regulations and policies could deter customers from purchasing energy efficiency and renewable energy systems. For example, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) conducted its own review of grid resiliency and the functioning of electricity markets and has made, and could continue to make, changes to policies and regulations related to the function of the electricity markets and grid resiliency which may negatively impact the use of renewable energy or encourage the use of fossil fuel energy over renewable energy. This could result in a significant reduction in the potential demand for such systems. Utilities commonly charge fees to larger, industrial customers for disconnecting from the electric grid or for having the capacity to use power from the electric grid for back-up purposes. In addition, there is an increasing trend towards initiating or increasing fixed fees for users to have electricity service from a utility. These fees could increase our customers’ cost to use energy efficiency and

Current wording

Federal, state and local government regulations and policies concerning the electric utility industry, and internal policies and regulations promulgated by electric utilities, heavily influence the market for electricity products and services. These regulations and policies often relate to electricity pricing and the interconnection of customer-owned electricity generation. In the United States, governments and utilities continuously modify these regulations and policies. These regulations and policies could deter customers from purchasing energy efficiency and renewable energy systems. For example, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) conducted a review of grid resiliency and the functioning of electricity markets and has made, and could continue to make, changes to policies and regulations related to the function of the electricity markets and grid resiliency which may negatively impact the use of renewable energy or encourage the use of fossil fuel energy over renewable energy. This could result in a significant reduction in the potential demand for such systems. Utilities commonly charge fees to larger, industrial customers for disconnecting from the electric grid or for having the capacity to use power from the electric grid for back-up purposes. In addition, there is an increasing trend towards initiating or increasing fixed fees for users to have electricity service from a utility. These fees could increase our customers’ cost to use energy efficiency and renewable energy systems not supplied by the utility and make them less desirable, thereby harming our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any changes to government or internal utility regulations and policies that favor electric utilities could reduce competitiveness and cause a significant reduction in demand for systems in which we invest.

Previous wording

Our sustainability and governance strategy and practices and the level of transparency with which we are approaching them are foundational to our business and expose us to several risks. We may fail or be unable to fully achieve one or more of our sustainability and governance goals due to a range of factors within or beyond our control, or we may adjust or modify our goals in light of new information, adjusted projections, or a change in business strategy, which could negatively impact our reputation and our business. A failure to or perception of a failure to disclose metrics and set goals that are rigorous enough or in an acceptable format, a failure to appropriately manage selection of goals, a failure to or perception of a failure to make appropriate disclosures, stockholder perception of a failure to prioritize the “correct” sustainability and governance goals, or an unfavorable sustainability and governance-related rating by a third party, could negatively impact our reputation and our business.

Current wording

Our sustainability and governance strategy and practices and the level of transparency with which we are approaching them are foundational to our business and expose us to several risks. We may fail or be unable to fully achieve one or more of our sustainability and governance goals due to a range of factors, or we may adjust or modify our goals in light of new information, adjusted projections, or a change in business strategy, which could negatively impact our reputation and our business. A failure, whether real or perceived, to disclose metrics and set goals that are rigorous enough or in an acceptable format, appropriately select and manage our goals, make appropriate disclosures, or an unfavorable sustainability and governance-related rating by a third party, could negatively impact our reputation and our business.

Previous wording

The environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) standards, norms, or metrics, are constantly evolving. In recent years “anti-ESG” sentiment has gained momentum across the U.S., with several states and Congress having proposed or enacted “anti-ESG” policies, legislation, or initiatives or issued related legal opinions, and the President having recently issued an executive order opposing diversity equity and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives in the private sector. If we do not successfully manage expectations across varied stakeholder interests, such anti-ESG and anti-DEI-related policies, legislation, initiatives, litigation, legal opinions, and scrutiny could result in us facing additional compliance obligations, becoming the subject of investigations and enforcement actions, or sustaining reputational harm.

Current wording

Environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) standards, norms, or metrics, are constantly evolving. In recent years, “anti-ESG” sentiment has gained momentum across the United States, with several states and Congress having proposed or enacted “anti-ESG” policies, legislation, or initiatives or issued related legal opinions, and the issuance of an executive order opposing diversity equity and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives in the private sector. If we do not successfully manage expectations across varied stakeholder interests, such anti-ESG and anti-DEI-related policies, legislation, initiatives, litigation, legal opinions, and scrutiny could result in us facing additional compliance obligations, becoming the subject of investigations and enforcement actions, or sustaining reputational harm.

Previous wording

Certain data we utilize in our CarbonCount or similar metric calculations is prepared by third parties or receives limited assurance from and/or verification by third parties and may undergo a less rigorous review process than assurance sought in connection with more traditional audits and such review process may not identify errors and may not protect us from potential liability under the securities laws. If errors are identified, our reputation and our business could be negatively impacted. If we were to seek more extensive assurance or attestation with respect to such sustainability and governance metrics, we may be unable to obtain such assurance or attestation or may face increased costs related to obtaining and/or maintaining such assurance or attestation. Our business could be negatively impacted if any of our disclosures, including our CarbonCount or similar metrics, reporting to third-party standards, or reporting against our goals, are inaccurate, perceived to be inaccurate, or alleged to be inaccurate.

Current wording

Certain data we utilize in our CarbonCount or similar metric calculations is prepared by third parties or receives limited assurance from and/or verification by third parties. Accordingly, such metric calculations may undergo a less rigorous review process than assurance sought in connection with more traditional audits and any related review processes may not identify errors or protect us from potential liability under the securities laws. If errors are identified, our reputation and our business could be negatively impacted. If we were to seek more extensive assurance or attestation with respect to such sustainability and governance metrics, we may be unable to obtain such assurance or attestation or may face increased costs related to obtaining and/or maintaining such assurance or attestation. Our business could be negatively impacted if any of our disclosures, including our CarbonCount or similar metrics, reporting to third-party standards, or reporting against our goals, are inaccurate, or perceived or alleged to be inaccurate.

Previous wording

We compete against a number of parties who may provide alternatives to our investments including, among others, a wide variety of financial institutions, government entities and energy industry participants. Increasing investor acceptance of the climate solutions market has increased the level of competition we experience. We also encounter competition in the form of potential customers or our origination partners electing to use their own capital rather than engaging an outside provider such as us. Some of our competitors are significantly larger than we are, have access to greater capital and other resources than we do and may have other advantages over us. In addition, some of our competitors have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which allow those competitors to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more relationships than we can. Further, many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with maintenance of an exemption from the 1940 Act. These characteristics could allow our competitors to consider a wider variety of opportunities, establish more relationships and offer better pricing and more flexible structuring than we can offer. We may lose business opportunities if we do not match our competitors’ pricing, terms and structure. If we match our competitors’ pricing, terms and structure, we may not be able to achieve acceptable risk-adjusted returns on our assets or we may be forced to bear greater risks of loss. The increase in the number or the size of our competitors in this market has resulted, and could continue to result, in less attractive terms on our investments or the need to accept a higher level of risks associated with our investments. As a result, competitive pressures we face could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

We compete against a number of parties who may provide alternatives to our investments including, among others, a wide variety of financial institutions, including private equity sponsors, government entities and energy industry participants. We also encounter competition in the form of potential customers or our origination partners electing to use their own capital rather than engaging an outside provider such as us. Increasing investor acceptance of the climate solutions market has increased the level of competition we experience. Some of our competitors are significantly larger than we are, have access to greater capital and other resources than we do and may have other advantages over us. In addition, some of our competitors have higher risk tolerances or different risk assessments, which allow those competitors to consider a wider variety of investments and establish more relationships than we can. Further, many of our competitors are not subject to the operating constraints associated with maintenance of an exemption from the 1940 Act. These characteristics could allow our competitors to consider a wider variety of opportunities, establish more relationships and offer better pricing and more flexible structuring than we can offer. We may lose business opportunities if we do not match our competitors’ pricing, terms and structure. If we match our competitors’ pricing, terms and structure, we may not be able to achieve acceptable risk-adjusted returns on our assets or we may be forced to bear greater risks of loss. The increase in the number or the size of our competitors in this market has resulted, and could continue to result, in less attractive terms on our investments or the need to accept a higher level of risks associated with our investments. As a result, competitive pressures we face could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

Our business depends in part on U.S. federal, state and local government policies, and a decline in the level of government support could harm our business.

Current wording

Our business is influenced by and depends in part on U.S. federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies, and changes in such laws, regulations or policies, or a decline in the level of government support could adversely affect our business.

Previous wording

The projects in which we invest typically depend in part on various U.S. federal, state or local governmental policies and incentives that support or enhance project economic feasibility. Such policies may include governmental initiatives, laws and regulations designed to reduce energy usage and impact the use of renewable energy or the investment in and the use of climate solutions, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. U.S. federal policies and incentives include, for example, tax credits, tax deductions, bonus depreciation, federal grants and loan guarantees and energy market regulations. State and local governments policies and incentives include, for example, renewable portfolio standards (“RPS”), feed-in tariffs, other tariffs, tax incentives and other cash and non-cash payments.

Current wording

The projects in which we invest may be influenced by and/or depend in part on various U.S. federal, state or local governmental policies and incentives that support or enhance project economic feasibility. Such policies may include governmental initiatives, laws and regulations designed to reduce energy usage and impact the use of renewable energy or the investment in and the use of climate solutions, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act. U.S. federal policies and incentives include, for example, tax credits, tax deductions, bonus depreciation, federal grants and loan guarantees and energy market regulations. State and local governments policies and incentives include, for example, renewable portfolio standards (“RPS”), feed-in tariffs, other tariffs, tax incentives and other cash and non-cash payments.

Previous wording

The projects we invest in are subject to substantial regulation by U.S. federal, state and local governmental agencies. For example, many projects require government permits, licenses, concessions, leases or contracts. Government entities, due to the wide-ranging scope of their authority, have significant leverage in setting their contractual and regulatory relationships with third parties. In addition, government permits, licenses, concessions, leases and contracts are generally very complex, which may result in periods of non-compliance, or disputes over interpretation or enforceability. If the projects in which we invest fail to obtain or comply with applicable regulations, permits, or contractual obligations, they could be prevented from being constructed or subjected to monetary penalties or loss of operational rights, which could negatively impact project operating results and the returns on our assets. In addition, government counterparties also may have the discretion to change or increase regulation of project operations, or implement laws or regulations affecting project operations, separate from any contractual rights they may have. These actions could adversely impact the efficient and profitable operation of the projects in which we invest.

Current wording

16 - third parties. In addition, government permits, licenses, concessions, leases and contracts are generally very complex, which may result in periods of non-compliance, or disputes over interpretation or enforceability. If the projects in which we invest fail to obtain or comply with applicable regulations, permits, or contractual obligations, they could be prevented from being constructed or subjected to monetary penalties or loss of operational rights, which could negatively impact project operating results and the returns on our assets. In addition, government counterparties also may have the discretion to change or increase regulation of project operations, or implement laws or regulations affecting project operations, separate from any contractual rights they may have. These actions could adversely impact the efficient and profitable operation of the projects in which we invest.

Previous wording

Government entities may also suspend or debar contractors from doing business with the government or pursue various criminal or civil remedies under various government contract regulations. They may also issue new government contracts or fail to extend existing government contracts. Our ability to originate new assets could be adversely affected if one or more of the

Current wording

Government entities may also suspend or debar contractors from doing business with the government or pursue various criminal or civil remedies under various government contract regulations. They may also issue new government contracts or fail to extend existing government contracts. Our ability to originate new assets could be adversely affected if one or more of the ESCOs or other origination sources with whom we have relationships are suspended or debarred or fail to win new, or renew existing, contracts.

Previous wording

Although our energy efficiency investments do not normally require additional governmental appropriations to cover repayment due to the energy and operating savings derived from the newly installed equipment and systems, a significant decline in the fiscal health, level of appropriations or budgets of government customers may make it difficult for them to remain current on existing payment obligations or undesirable to enter into new energy efficiency improvement projects. Alternatively, some government entities may choose to provide appropriations or other credit support for climate solutions projects, which would negatively impact the use of private capital such as ours. This could have a material and adverse effect on the return of and return on our investments for existing projects and on our ability to originate new assets. Moreover, other changes in resources available to governments may also impact their willingness to undertake energy efficiency projects. For example, an increase in money set aside for government expenditures for energy efficiency projects may reduce demand for our investments.

Current wording

Although our energy efficiency investments do not normally require additional governmental appropriations to cover repayment due to the energy and operating savings derived from the newly installed equipment and systems, a significant decline in the fiscal health, level of appropriations or budgets may make it difficult for our government customers to remain current on existing payment obligations or undesirable to enter into new energy efficiency improvement projects. Alternatively, some government entities may choose to provide appropriations or other credit support for climate solutions projects, which would negatively impact the use of private capital such as ours. This could have a material and adverse effect on the return on our investments for existing projects and on our ability to originate new assets. Moreover, other changes in resources available to governments may also impact their willingness to undertake energy efficiency projects.

Previous wording

With respect to the projects in which we invest, increases in interest rates, have caused, and in general, may in the future cause: (1) project owners to be less interested in borrowing or raising equity and thus reduce the demand for our investments; (2) the interest expense associated with the project’s borrowings to increase; (3) the market value of the project’s fixed rate or fixed return assets to decline; and (4) the market value of any of the project’s fixed-rate interest rate swap agreements to increase. Decreases in interest rates, in general, may over time cause: (1) project owners to be more interested in borrowing or raising equity thus increase the demand for our assets; (2) prepayments on our assets, to the extent allowed, to increase; (3) the interest expense associated with the project’s borrowings to decrease; (4) the market value of the project’s fixed rate or fixed return assets to increase; and (5) the market value of any fixed-rate interest rate swap agreements to decrease. Adverse developments resulting from changes in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Current wording

With respect to the projects in which we invest, prior increases in interest rates have caused, and in general, may in the future cause: (1) project owners to be less interested in borrowing or raising equity and thus reduce the demand for our investments; (2) the interest expense associated with the project’s borrowings to increase; (3) the market value of the project’s fixed rate or fixed return assets to decline; and (4) the market value of any of the project’s fixed-rate interest rate swap agreements to increase. Decreases in interest rates, in general, may over time cause: (i) project owners to be more interested in borrowing or raising equity thus increasing the demand for our assets; (ii) prepayments and refinancings on our assets, to the extent allowed, to increase; (iii) the interest expense associated with the project’s borrowings to decrease; (iv) the market value of the project’s fixed rate or fixed return assets to increase; and (v) the market value of any fixed-rate interest rate swap agreements to decrease. Adverse developments resulting from changes in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

A decline in the fair market value of any asset we carry at fair value, may require us to reduce the value of such assets under GAAP. In addition, our other financial assets are subject to an impairment assessment that could result in adjustments to their carrying values. Upon the subsequent disposition or sale of such assets, we could incur future losses or gains based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted value of such assets as reflected on our balance sheet at the time of sale.

Current wording

A decline in the fair market value of any asset we carry at fair value, may require us to reduce the value of such assets under GAAP. In addition, our other financial assets are subject to an impairment assessment that could result in adjustments to their carrying values. Upon the subsequent disposition or sale of such assets, we could incur future losses or gains based on the difference between the sale price received and adjusted value of such assets as reflected on our balance sheet at the time of sale. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Previous wording

In addition, many of the project’s end-customers are large entities with wide ranging activities. A climate related event in a non-related part of the business could have a material adverse impact on the financial strength of such end-customer and their ability to honor their contractual obligations which could negatively impact on revenue and the cash flow of the project and our business.

Current wording

In addition, many of the project’s end-customers are large entities with wide ranging activities. A climate related event in a non-related part of the business could have a material adverse impact on the financial strength of such end-customer and their

Previous wording

Our investments are subject to risks of delinquency, foreclosure and loss. In many cases, the ability of a borrower to return our invested capital and our expected return is dependent primarily upon the successful development, construction and operation of the underlying project. If the cash flow of the project is reduced, the borrower’s ability to return our capital and our expected return may be impaired. We make certain estimates regarding project cash flows or savings during the underwriting of our investment. These estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. The cash flows or cost savings of a project can be affected by, among other things: the terms of the power purchase or other use agreements used in such project; the creditworthiness of the off-taker or project user; price of power or services now and in the future; the technology deployed; unanticipated expenses in the development or operation of the project and changes in national, regional, state or local economic conditions, laws and regulations; and force majeure events.

Current wording

Our investments are subject to risks of delinquency, foreclosure and loss. In many cases, the ability of a borrower to return our invested capital and our expected return is dependent primarily upon the successful development, construction and operation of the underlying project. If the cash flow of the project is reduced, the borrower’s ability to return our capital and our expected return may be impaired. We make certain estimates regarding project cash flows or savings during the underwriting of our investment. These estimates may not prove accurate, as actual results may vary from estimates. The cash flows or cost savings of a project can be affected by, among other things: the terms of the power purchase or other use agreements used in such project; the creditworthiness of the offtaker or project user; price of power or services now and in the future; the technology deployed; unanticipated expenses in the development or operation of the project and changes in national, regional, state or local economic conditions, laws and regulations; and force majeure events.

Previous wording

We provide a range of product investment structures, including various types of debt and equity securities, senior and subordinated loans, real property leases, mezzanine debt, preferred equity and common equity. Our projects may have, or may be permitted to incur, other liabilities or equity preferences that rank equally with, or senior to, our positions or investments in such projects or businesses, as the case may be, including with respect to grants of collateral. By their terms, such instruments may entitle the holders to receive payment of interest, principal payments or other distributions on or before the dates on which we are entitled to receive payments with respect to the instruments in which we invest. Also, in the event of insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of an entity in which we have invested, holders of instruments ranking senior to our investment in that project or business would typically be entitled to receive payment in full before we receive any distribution. After repaying such senior stakeholders, such project may not have any remaining assets to use for repaying its obligation to us. In the case of securities ranking equally with instruments we hold, we would have to share on an equal basis any distributions with other stakeholders holding such instruments in the event of an insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of the relevant project.

Current wording

19 - may entitle the holders to receive payment of interest, principal payments or other distributions on or before the dates on which we are entitled to receive payments with respect to the instruments in which we invest. Also, in the event of insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of an entity in which we have invested, holders of instruments ranking senior to our investment in that project or business would typically be entitled to receive payment in full before we receive any distribution. After repaying such senior stakeholders, such project may not have any remaining assets to use for repaying its obligation to us. In the case of securities ranking equally with instruments we hold, we would have to share on an equal basis any distributions with other stakeholders holding such instruments in the event of an insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of the relevant project.

Previous wording

Some of our project companies are structured as joint ventures, partnerships, securitizations, and syndications, and we also at times invest in project companies through co-investment structures. Part of our strategy is to participate with other institutional investors or the project’s sponsor on various climate solutions transactions. These arrangements are driven by the magnitude of capital required to complete acquisitions and the development of climate solutions projects and other industry-wide trends that we believe will continue. Such arrangements involve risks not present where a third party is not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or otherwise fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Additionally, partners or co-venturers might at any time have economic or other business interests or goals different from ours. These investments generally provide for a reduced level of control over an acquired project because governance rights are shared with others. Accordingly, project decisions relating to the management, operation and the timing and nature of any exit, are often made by a majority vote of the investors or by separate agreements that are reached with respect to individual decisions. In addition, project operations may be subject to the risk that the project owners may make business, financial or management choices with which we do not agree or the management of the project may take risks or otherwise act in a manner that does not serve our interests, including not making distributions. Because we may not have the ability to exercise control, we may not be able to realize some or all of the benefits expected from our investment. If any of the foregoing were to occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer as a result.

Current wording

Part of our strategy is to participate with other institutional investors or project sponsors on various climate solutions transactions. Accordingly, some of our project companies are structured as joint ventures, partnerships, securitizations, and syndications, and we also at times invest in project companies through co-investment structures. These arrangements are driven by the magnitude of capital required to complete acquisitions and the development of climate solutions projects and other industry-wide trends that we believe will continue. Such arrangements involve risks not present where a third party is not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or otherwise fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Additionally, partners or co-venturers might at any time have economic or other business interests or goals different from ours. These investments generally provide for a reduced level of control over an acquired project because governance rights are shared with others. Accordingly, project decisions relating to the management, operation and the timing and nature of any exit, are often made by a majority vote of the investors or by separate agreements that are reached with respect to individual decisions. In addition, project operations may be subject to the risk that the project owners may make business, financial or management choices with which we do not agree or the management of the project may take risks or otherwise act in a manner that does not serve our interests, including not making distributions. Because we may not have the ability to exercise control, we may not be able to realize some or all of the benefits expected from our investment. If any of the foregoing were to occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could suffer.

Previous wording

Many of the projects in which we invest rely on revenue or repayment from contractual commitments of end-customers, including federal, state, or local governments for energy efficiency projects or utilities or other customers under PPAs. There is a risk that these customers may default under their contracts. In addition, many of these end-customers are large entities with wide ranging activities. An event in a non-related part of the business could have a material adverse impact on the financial strength of such end-customer, such as the effect of wildfires on the California utilities. Furthermore, the bankruptcy, insolvency, or other liquidity constraints of one or more customers may result in a renegotiation or rejection of the third-party contract, delay the receipt of any obligations or reduce the likelihood of collecting defaulted obligations. Some projects rely on one customer for their revenue and thus the project could be materially and adversely affected by any material change in the financial condition of that customer. While there may be alternative customers for such a project, there can be no assurance that a new contract on the same terms will be able to be negotiated for the project.

Current wording

Many of the projects in which we invest rely on revenue or repayment from contractual commitments of end-customers, including federal, state, or local governments for energy efficiency projects, or utilities or other customers under PPAs. There is a risk that these customers may default under their respective contracts. In addition, many of these end-customers are large entities with wide ranging activities. An event in a non-related part of their respective businesses could have a material adverse impact on the financial strength of such end-customer, such as the effect of wildfires on certain California utilities. Furthermore, the bankruptcy, insolvency, or other liquidity constraints of one or more of our customers may result in a renegotiation or rejection of the relevant third-party contract, delay the receipt of any obligations or reduce the likelihood of collecting defaulted obligations. Some projects rely on one customer for their revenue and thus the project could be materially and adversely affected by any material change in the financial condition of that customer. While there may be alternative customers for such a project, there can be no assurance that a new contract on the same terms will be able to be negotiated for the project.

Previous wording

In most instances, projects which sell power under PPAs commit to sell minimum levels of generation. If the project generates less than the committed volumes, it may be required to buy the shortfall of electricity on the open market or make payments of liquidated damages or be in default under a PPA, which could result in its termination. In the event that any of these events were to occur, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could suffer as a result.

Current wording

In most instances, projects which sell power under PPAs commit to sell minimum levels of generation. If the project generates less than the committed volumes, it may be required to buy the shortfall of electricity on the open market or make payments of liquidated damages or be in default under a PPA, which could result in termination of the relevant contract. In the event that any of these events were to occur, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could suffer.

Previous wording

Certain of our projects with contractually committed revenues or other sources of repayment under long term contracts will be subject to re-contracting risk in the future. These projects may be unable to renegotiate these contracts on equally favorable terms or at all once their terms expire. If it is not possible to renegotiate these contracts on favorable terms, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Current wording

Lastly, certain of our projects with contractually committed revenues or other sources of repayment under long-term contracts will be subject to re-contracting risk in the future. We may be unable to renegotiate these contracts on equally favorable terms or at all once their terms expire. If it is not possible to renegotiate these contracts on favorable terms, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Previous wording

22 - repay their loan timely or at all. We seek to mitigate these credit risks by employing a comprehensive review and asset selection process and careful ongoing monitoring of acquired assets. Nevertheless, unanticipated credit losses could occur which could adversely impact our operating results. During periods of economic downturn in the global economy, the solvency and financial wherewithal of counterparties with whom we do business could be impacted and our exposure to credit risks from obligors increases, and our efforts to monitor and mitigate the associated risks may not be effective in reducing our credit risks. In the event a counterparty to us or one of our climate solutions projects becomes insolvent or unable to make payments, we may fail to recover the full value of our investment or realize the value from the counterparty’s contract, thus reducing our earnings and liquidity. In addition, the insolvency of one or more of our, or one of our climate solutions projects’, counterparties could reduce the amount of financing available to us, which would make it more difficult for us to leverage the value of our assets and obtain substitute financing on attractive terms or at all. A material reduction in our financing sources or an adverse change in the terms of our financings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Certain participants in the sustainable energy industry have experienced significant declines in the value of their equity and difficulty in raising or refinancing debt, which increases the credit risk to these companies and they may not be able to fulfill their obligations which could adversely impact our operating results.

Current wording

Where we make loans to or own equity interests in special purposes entities such as those that lease solar energy systems to residential customers, those special purpose entities often enter into various contractual arrangements with, or receive performance guarantees from the affiliate project sponsor to ensure satisfactory equipment or other project performance over the term of the lease or power purchase agreement. To the extent those parties are unable to perform on their contractual obligations or performance guarantees we may see diminished equity returns or the special purpose entity may be unable to repay their loan timely or at all. While we employ a comprehensive review and asset selection process, and carefully monitor acquired assets on an ongoing basis, unanticipated credit losses could occur which could adversely impact our operating results. During periods of economic downturn in the global economy, the solvency and financial wherewithal of counterparties with whom we do business could be impacted thereby increasing our exposure to credit risks from obligors, and our efforts to monitor and mitigate the associated risks may not be effective. In the event a counterparty becomes insolvent or unable to make payments, we may fail to recover the full value of our investment or realize the value from the counterparty’s contract, thus reducing our earnings and liquidity. In addition, the insolvency of one or more of our, or one of our climate solutions projects’, counterparties could reduce the amount of financing available to us, which would make it more difficult for us to leverage the value of our assets and obtain substitute financing on attractive terms or at all. A material reduction in our financing sources or an adverse change in the terms of our financings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Certain participants in the sustainable energy industry have experienced significant declines in the value of their equity and difficulty in raising or refinancing debt, which increases the credit risk to these companies and they may not be able to fulfill their obligations which could adversely impact our operating results.

Previous wording

The future success of our assets will depend, in part, on their ability to maintain satisfactory interconnection agreements. If the interconnection or transmission agreement of a project is terminated for any reason, they may not be able to replace it with an interconnection and transmission arrangement on terms as favorable as the existing arrangement, or at all, or they may experience significant delays or costs in connection with securing a replacement. If a network to which one or more of the projects is connected experiences equipment or operational problems or other forms of “down time,” the affected project may lose revenue and be exposed to non-performance penalties and claims from its customers. These may include claims for damages incurred by customers, such as the additional cost of acquiring alternative electricity supply at then-current spot market rates. The owners of the network will not usually compensate electricity generators for lost income due to down time. In addition, our projects may be exposed to a locational basis risk resulting from a difference between where the power is generated and the contracted delivery point. These factors could materially affect these projects, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, and cash flow.

Current wording

The future success of our assets will depend, in part, on the ability of such assets to maintain satisfactory interconnection agreements. If the interconnection or transmission agreement of a project is terminated for any reason, the project may not be able to replace it with an interconnection and transmission arrangement on terms as favorable as the terminated arrangement, or at all, or the project may experience significant delays or costs in connection with securing a replacement. If a network to which one or more of the projects is connected experiences equipment or operational problems or other forms of “down time,” the affected project may lose revenue and be exposed to non-performance penalties and claims from its customers. These may include claims for damages incurred by customers, such as the additional cost of acquiring alternative electricity supply at then-current spot market rates. The owners of the network will not usually compensate electricity generators for lost income due to down time. In addition, our projects may be exposed to a locational basis risk resulting from a difference between where the power is generated and the contracted delivery point. These factors could materially affect these projects, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, and cash flow.

Previous wording

Generally, any projects involving construction are subject to various construction and operating delays and risks that have in the past caused them to, and may in the future cause them to, incur higher than expected costs or generate less than expected amounts of savings or outputs, such as electricity in the case of a renewable energy project.

Current wording

Generally, projects involving construction are subject to various construction and operating delays and risks that have in the past and may in the future cause higher than expected costs or less than expected amounts of savings or outputs (such as electricity in the case of a renewable energy project).

Previous wording

The ongoing operation of the projects in which we invest involves risks that include construction delays, the breakdown or failure of equipment or processes or performance below expected levels of output or efficiency due to wear and tear, the impact of inflation, latent defect, design error or operator error or force majeure events, among other things. In addition to natural risks such as earthquake, flood, drought, lightning, wildfire, hurricane, ice, wind, and temperature extremes, other hazards, such as fire, explosion, structural collapse and machinery failure, acts of terrorism or related acts of war, hostile cyber intrusions, pandemics or other public health issue, or other catastrophic events are inherent risks in the construction and operation of a project. These and other hazards can cause significant personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property, plant and equipment and contamination of, or damage to, the environment and suspension of operations. Operation of a project also involves risks that the operator will be unable to transport its product to its customers in an efficient manner due to a lack of transmission capacity. Unplanned outages of projects, including extensions of scheduled outages due to mechanical failures or other problems, occur from time to time and are an inherent risk of the business. Unplanned outages typically increase operation and maintenance expenses and may reduce revenues as a result of selling less electricity or require the project to incur significant costs as a result of obtaining replacement power from third parties in the open market to satisfy forward power sales obligations. Any extended interruption in a project’s construction or operation, a project’s inability to operate its assets efficiently, manage capital expenditures and costs or generate earnings and cash flow could have a material adverse effect on the repayment of and return on our investment and our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. While the projects maintain insurance, obtain warranties from vendors and obligate contractors to meet certain performance levels, the proceeds of such insurance, warranties or performance guarantees may not cover the lost revenues, increased expenses or liquidated damages payments should the project experience any equipment breakdowns, insurance claims or non-performance by contractors or vendors.

Current wording

The ongoing operation of the projects in which we invest involves risks that include construction delays, the breakdown or failure of equipment or processes or performance below expected levels of output or efficiency due to wear and tear, the impact of inflation, latent defect, design error or operator error or force majeure events, among other things. In addition to natural risks such as earthquake, flood, drought, lightning, wildfire, hurricane, ice, wind, and temperature extremes, other hazards, such as fire, explosion, structural collapse and machinery failure, geopolitical conflicts, acts of terrorism or related acts of war, hostile cyber intrusions, pandemics or other public health issues, or other catastrophic events are inherent risks in the construction and operation of a project. These and other hazards can cause significant personal injury or loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property, plant and equipment and contamination of, or damage to, the environment and suspension of operations. Operation of a project also involves risks that the operator will be unable to transport its product to its customers in an efficient manner due to a lack of transmission capacity. Unplanned outages of projects, including extensions of scheduled outages due to mechanical failures or other problems, occur from time to time and are an inherent risk of the business. Unplanned outages typically increase operation and maintenance expenses and may reduce revenues as a result of selling less electricity or require the project to incur significant costs as a result of obtaining replacement power from third parties in the open market to satisfy forward power sales obligations. Any extended interruption in a project’s construction or operation, a project’s inability to operate its assets efficiently, manage capital expenditures and costs or generate earnings and

Previous wording

In addition, renewable energy projects rely on electric and other types of transmission lines and facilities owned and operated by third parties to receive and distribute their energy. Any substantial access barriers to these lines and facilities could adversely impact the demand or financial performance for such projects and our investments.

Current wording

In addition, renewable energy projects rely on electric and other types of transmission lines and facilities owned and operated by third parties to receive and distribute energy. Any substantial access barriers to these lines and facilities could adversely impact the demand or financial performance for such projects and our investments.

Previous wording

Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real estate or a project may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released from the project or any underlying real property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances.

Current wording

Under various U.S. federal, state and local laws, an owner or operator of real estate or a project may become liable for the costs of removal of certain hazardous substances released from the project or any underlying real property. These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of such hazardous substances. We acquire real property rights, make investments in projects that own real property, have collateral consisting of real property and in the course of our business, we may take title to a project or its underlying real estate assets relating to one of our debt financings. In these cases, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these assets.

Previous wording

The presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect our, or another owner’s, ability to sell a contaminated project or borrow using the project as collateral. To the extent that we, or another project owner, become liable for removal costs, our investment, or the ability of the owner to make payments to us, may be negatively impacted.

Current wording

The presence of hazardous substances may adversely affect our ability to sell a contaminated project or borrow using the project as collateral. To the extent that we become liable for the removal costs, our results of operation and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it difficult for stockholders to elect directors that are not nominated by the current members of our Board or take other corporate actions, including effecting changes in our management. These provisions include:

Current wording

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our Company. These provisions could also make it difficult for stockholders to elect directors that are not nominated by the current members of our Board or to take other corporate actions, including effecting changes in our management. These provisions include:

Previous wording

•establishing advance notice provisions for stockholder proposals and nominations for elections to our Board to be acted upon at meetings of stockholders;

Current wording

•advance notice provisions for stockholder proposals and nominations for elections to our Board to be acted upon at meetings of stockholders;

Previous wording

Our charter provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, and unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, in the event that the Chancery Court does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court of the State of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of us, (ii) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer, other employee or stockholder of ours to us or our stockholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), our charter or our bylaws (as either may be amended or restated) or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or (iv) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine of the law of the State of

Current wording

Our charter provides that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, and unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (or, in the event that the Chancery Court does not have jurisdiction, the federal district court of the State of Delaware) will be the sole and exclusive forum for (1) any derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of us, (2) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any current or former director, officer, other employee or stockholder of ours to us or our stockholders, (3) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), our charter or our bylaws (as either may be amended or restated) or as to which the DGCL confers jurisdiction on the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or (4) any action asserting a claim governed by the internal affairs doctrine of the law of the State of Delaware.

Previous wording

Delaware. However, our charter provides that federal district courts of the United States of America will be the sole and exclusive forum for claims under the Securities Act.

Current wording

However, our charter provides that federal district courts of the United States of America will be the sole and exclusive forum for claims under the Securities Act.

Previous wording

We elected to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013, but recently terminated our election, effective January 1, 2024. Prior to terminating our REIT election, our qualification as a REIT depended upon our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. We structured our activities in a manner designed to satisfy all the requirements to qualify as a REIT. However, the REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex and interpretation of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT is limited. Furthermore, any opinion of our counsel, regarding qualification as a REIT is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). Satisfying the asset tests depended on our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination. Furthermore, during the period that we elected to be taxed as a REIT, we invested in certain assets that we believed were qualifying assets for purposes of the REIT assets tests, such as mezzanine loans meeting certain requirements and commercial property assessed clean energy assets, and no assurance can be provided that the IRS would agree with such characterizations. Accordingly, if certain of our operations were to be recharacterized by the IRS, such recharacterization could jeopardize our ability to have satisfied all requirements for qualification as a REIT for prior taxable years. Furthermore, future legislative, judicial or administrative changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws could be applied retroactively, which could result in our disqualification as a REIT for prior taxable years.

Current wording

We elected to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ended December 31, 2013, but terminated our election, effective January 1, 2024. Prior to terminating our REIT election, our qualification as a REIT depended upon our satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, stockholder ownership and other requirements on a continuing basis. We structured our activities in a manner designed to satisfy all the requirements to qualify as a REIT. However, the REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex and interpretation of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT is limited. Furthermore, any opinion of our counsel, regarding qualification as a REIT is not binding on the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). Satisfying the asset tests depended on our analysis of the characterization and fair market values of our assets, some of which are not susceptible to a precise determination. Furthermore, during the period that we elected to be taxed as a REIT, we invested in certain assets that we believed were qualifying assets for purposes of the REIT assets tests, such as mezzanine loans meeting certain requirements and commercial property assessed clean energy assets, and no assurance can be provided that the IRS would agree with such characterizations. Accordingly, if certain of our operations were to be recharacterized by the IRS, such recharacterization could jeopardize our ability to have satisfied all requirements for qualification as a REIT for prior taxable years. Furthermore, future legislative, judicial or administrative changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws could be applied retroactively, which could result in our disqualification as a REIT for prior taxable years.

Previous wording

27 - satisfy the requirements of the Real Property Regulations described above. In addition to the limited authority directly on point, two other important caveats apply in this regard. First, the Real Property Regulations do not define what is required for an obligation secured by a lien on a structural component to also be secured by a real property interest in the building served by such structural component. However, the initial proposed version of the Real Property Regulations, which never became effective, included a requirement that the interest in the real property held by a REIT be “equivalent” to the interest in a structural component held by the REIT in order for the structural component to be treated as a real estate asset. This requirement was ultimately not included in the final Real Property Regulations, in part in response to comments that such requirement may negatively affect investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy assets. We believe the deletion of this requirement implies that under the final Real Property Regulations, our rights in the building during the period we elected to be taxed as a REIT did not need to be equivalent to our rights in the structural components serving the building. Second, real property law is typically relegated to the states and the specific rights available to any lien or mortgage holder, including our rights as a fixture lien holder described above, may vary between jurisdictions as a result of a range of factors, including the specific local real property law requirements and judicial and regulatory interpretations of such laws, and the competing rights of mortgage and other lenders. During the period we elected to be taxed as a REIT, we applied the analysis described above in a number of states that have adopted Section 9-604(b) of the UCC. In addition, in states where Section 9-604(b) of the UCC has not been adopted, we applied the analysis described above based on the application of the local real property laws of that state to the extent that we received advice from counsel in those jurisdictions that local real property law provided us with appropriate rights to the buildings in which the structural improvements securing our receivables were installed. Furthermore, we applied the analysis described above to certain receivables secured by liens on structural improvements installed in buildings located in certain U.S. installations outside of the United States, based on our view that such installations were subject to U.S. sovereignty and as a result the UCC applied in such installations. While a number of cases have addressed the rights of fixture lien holders generally, there are limited judicial interpretations in only a few jurisdictions that directly address the rights and remedies available to a fixture lien holder in the real property in which the fixtures have been installed. Such rights have been addressed in some cases that support our position and, in factual circumstance…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

25 - satisfy the requirements of the Real Property Regulations described above. In addition to the limited authority directly on point, two other important caveats apply in this regard. First, the Real Property Regulations do not define what is required for an obligation secured by a lien on a structural component to also be secured by a real property interest in the building served by such structural component. However, the initial proposed version of the Real Property Regulations, which never became effective, included a requirement that the interest in the real property held by a REIT be “equivalent” to the interest in a structural component held by the REIT in order for the structural component to be treated as a real estate asset. This requirement was ultimately not included in the final Real Property Regulations, in part in response to comments that such requirement may negatively affect investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy assets. We believe the deletion of this requirement implies that under the final Real Property Regulations, our rights in the building during the period we elected to be taxed as a REIT did not need to be equivalent to our rights in the structural components serving the building. Second, real property law is typically relegated to the states and the specific rights available to any lien or mortgage holder, including our rights as a fixture lien holder described above, may vary between jurisdictions as a result of a range of factors, including the specific local real property law requirements and judicial and regulatory interpretations of such laws, and the competing rights of mortgage and other lenders. During the period we elected to be taxed as a REIT, we applied the analysis described above in a number of states that have adopted Section 9-604(b) of the UCC. In addition, in states where Section 9-604(b) of the UCC has not been adopted, we applied the analysis described above based on the application of the local real property laws of that state to the extent that we received advice from counsel in those jurisdictions that local real property law provided us with appropriate rights to the buildings in which the structural improvements securing our receivables were installed. Furthermore, we applied the analysis described above to certain receivables secured by liens on structural improvements installed in buildings located in certain U.S. installations outside of the United States, based on our view that such installations were subject to U.S. sovereignty and as a result the UCC applied in such installations. While a number of cases have addressed the rights of fixture lien holders generally, there are limited judicial interpretations in only a few jurisdictions that directly address the rights and remedies available to a fixture lien holder in the real property in which the fixtures have been installed. Such rights have been addressed in some cases that support our position and, in factual circumstance…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

A corporation’s ability to deduct its federal NOL carryforwards and to utilize certain other available tax attributes can be substantially constrained under the general annual limitation rules of Section 382 of the Code (“Section 382”) if it undergoes an “ownership change” as defined in Section 382 (generally where cumulative stock ownership changes among material stockholders exceed 50% during a rolling three-year period). An ownership change may severely limit or effectively eliminate our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes. In October 2023, our Board adopted a tax benefits preservation plan (the “Tax Benefits Preservation Plan”) in order to preserve our ability to use our NOLs and certain other tax attributes to reduce potential future income tax obligations. The Tax Benefits Preservation Plan was terminated in conjunction with our conversion from a Maryland corporation to a Delaware corporation in July 2024 (the “Conversion”). In the Conversion, we adopted our charter. Our charter includes provisions that are also intended to reduce the risk of an “ownership change” under Section 382 of the Code (the “Charter Tax Benefit Provisions”). The Charter Tax Benefit Provisions generally restrict any person or entity from attempting to transfer any of our stock to the extent that transfer would, if effected and subject to certain exceptions, (i) result in an individual, entity, firm, corporation, estate, trust or other person or group of persons described in the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions as a “Person” owning 4.8% or more of our common stock (which the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions refer to as a “Prohibited Ownership Percentage”) or (ii) increase the ownership percentage of any Person that has a Prohibited Ownership Percentage, subject to certain exceptions. The Charter Tax Benefit Provisions provide that any transfer that violates the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions shall be null and void ab initio and shall not be effective to transfer any record, legal, beneficial or any other ownership of the number of shares which result in the violation of the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions.

Current wording

A corporation’s ability to deduct its federal NOL carryforwards and to utilize certain other available tax attributes can be substantially constrained under the general annual limitation rules of Section 382 of the Code (“Section 382”) if it undergoes an “ownership change” as defined in Section 382 (generally where cumulative stock ownership changes among material stockholders exceed 50% during a rolling three-year period). An ownership change may severely limit or effectively eliminate our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes. In October 2023, our Board adopted a tax benefits preservation plan (the “Tax Benefits Preservation Plan”) in order to preserve our ability to use our NOLs and certain other tax attributes to reduce potential future income tax obligations. The Tax Benefits Preservation Plan was terminated in conjunction with our conversion from a Maryland corporation to a Delaware corporation in July 2024 (the “Conversion”). In the Conversion, we adopted our charter, which includes provisions that are also intended to reduce the risk of an “ownership change” under Section 382 of the Code (the “Charter Tax Benefit Provisions”). The Charter Tax Benefit Provisions generally restrict any person or entity from attempting to transfer any of our stock to the extent that transfer would, if effected and subject to certain exceptions, (i) result in an individual, entity, firm, corporation, estate, trust or other person or group of persons described in the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions as a “Person” owning 4.8% or more of our common stock (which the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions refer to as a “Prohibited Ownership Percentage”) or (ii) increase the ownership percentage of any Person that has a Prohibited Ownership Percentage, subject to certain exceptions. The Charter Tax Benefit Provisions provide that any transfer that violates the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions shall be null and void ab initio and shall not be effective to transfer any record, legal, beneficial or any other ownership of the number of shares which result in the violation of the Charter Tax Benefit Provisions.

Previous wording

29 - our originating, financing, investing, asset and financial management and reporting activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

Current wording

27 - our originating, financing, investing, asset and financial management and reporting activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

Previous wording

A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information resources. These incidents may be an intentional attack or an unintentional event and could involve gaining unauthorized access to our information systems for purposes of misappropriating assets, stealing confidential information, corrupting data or causing operational disruption. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusions, including by computer hackers, nation-state affiliated actors, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased, and will likely continue to increase in the future. The result of these incidents could include disrupted operations, misstated or unreliable financial data, disrupted market price of our common stock, misappropriation of assets, liability for stolen assets or information, increased cybersecurity protection and insurance cost, regulatory enforcement, litigation and damage to our relationships. These risks require continuous and likely increasing attention and other resources from us to, among other actions, identify and quantify these risks, upgrade and expand our technologies, systems and processes to adequately address them and provide periodic training for our employees to assist them in detecting phishing, malware and other schemes. Such attention diverts time and other resources from other activities and there is no assurance that our efforts will be effective. Additionally, the cost of maintaining such systems and processes, procedures and internal controls may increase from its current level. Potential sources for disruption, damage or failure of our information technology systems include, without limitation, computer viruses, security breaches, human error, cyber- attacks, natural disasters and defects in design. Additionally, due to the size and nature of our company, we rely on third-party service providers for many aspects of our business. The networks and systems that our third-party vendors have established or use may not be effective. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to both our information systems and those provided by third-party service providers. Our processes, procedures and internal controls that are designed to mitigate cybersecurity risks and cyber intrusions do not guarantee that a cyber incident will not occur or that our financial results, operations or confidential information will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

Current wording

28 - increased cybersecurity protection and insurance cost, regulatory enforcement, litigation and damage to our relationships. These risks require continuous and likely increasing attention and other resources from us to, among other actions, identify and quantify these risks, upgrade and expand our technologies, systems and processes to adequately address them and provide periodic training for our employees to assist them in detecting phishing, malware and other schemes. Such attention diverts time and other resources from other activities and there is no assurance that our efforts will be effective. Additionally, the cost of maintaining such systems and processes, procedures and internal controls may increase from its current level. Potential sources for disruption, damage or failure of our information technology systems include, without limitation, computer viruses, security breaches, human error, cyber- attacks, natural disasters and defects in design. Additionally, due to the size and nature of our Company, we rely on third-party service providers for many aspects of our business. The networks and systems that our third-party vendors have established or use may not be effective. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to both our information systems and those provided by third-party service providers. Our processes, procedures and internal controls that are designed to mitigate cybersecurity risks and cyber intrusions do not guarantee that a cyber incident will not occur or that our financial results, operations or confidential information will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

Previous wording

We generate substantially all of our revenue from operations in the United States. We have begun to expand and may seek to expand our investments outside of the United States in the future. These operations will be subject to a variety of risks

Current wording

We generate substantially all of our revenue from operations in the United States. We have begun to expand and may seek to expand our investments outside of the United States in the future. These operations will be subject to a variety of risks that we do not face in the United States, including risk from changes in foreign country regulations, infrastructure, legal systems and markets. Other risks include possible difficulty in repatriating overseas earnings and fluctuations in foreign currencies.

Previous wording

Our overall success in international markets will depend, in part, on our ability to succeed in different legal, regulatory, economic, social and political conditions. We may not be successful in developing and implementing policies and strategies that will be effective in managing these risks in each country where we decide to do business. Our failure to manage these risks successfully could harm our international projects, reduce our international income or increase our costs, thus adversely affecting our business, financial condition and operating results.

Current wording

Our overall success in international markets will depend, in part, on our ability to succeed in different legal, regulatory, economic, social and political conditions. We may not be successful in developing and implementing policies and strategies that will be effective in managing these risks in each country where we decide to do business. Our failure to manage these risks successfully could harm any future international projects, reduce our international income or increase our costs, thus adversely affecting our business, financial condition and operating results.