Greenlight Capital Re (GLRE) Risk Analysis

Our Articles contain certain provisions that could make it difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be beneficial to our shareholders. Our Articles provide that a director may only be removed for "cause" as defined in the Articles, upon the affirmative vote of not less than 50% of the votes cast at a meeting at which more than 50% of our issued and outstanding Class A ordinary shares are represented. Further, under the Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association of Greenlight Re, a director may only be removed without cause upon the affirmative vote of not less than 80% of the votes cast at a meeting at which more than 50% of our issued and outstanding Class A ordinary shares are represented. Our Articles permit our Board of Directors to issue preferred shares from time to time, with such rights and preferences as they consider appropriate. Our Board of Directors may authorize the issuance of preferred shares with terms and conditions and under circumstances that could have an effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction, deny shareholders the receipt of a premium on their Class A ordinary shares in the event of a tender or other offer for Class A ordinary shares and have a depressive effect on the market price of the Class A ordinary shares. As compared to mergers under corporate law in the United States, it may be more difficult to consummate a merger of two or more companies in the Cayman Islands or the merger of one or more Cayman Islands companies with one or more overseas companies, even if such transaction would be beneficial to our shareholders. In certain circumstances, the Companies Act allows for mergers or consolidations between two Cayman Islands companies, or between a Cayman Islands exempted company and a company incorporated in another jurisdiction (provided that is facilitated by the laws of that other jurisdiction). Where the merger or consolidation is between two Cayman Islands companies, the directors of each company must approve a written plan of merger or consolidation containing certain prescribed information. That plan or merger or consolidation must then be authorized by: (a) a special resolution of the shareholders of each company; and (b) such other authorization, if any, as may be specified in such constituent company's articles of association. No shareholder resolution is required for a merger between a parent company (i.e., a company that holds issued shares that together represent 90% of the votes at a general meeting of the subsidiary company) and its subsidiary company if a copy of the plan of merger is given to every member of each subsidiary company to be merged unless that member agrees otherwise. The consent of each holder of a fixed or floating security interest of a constituent company must be obtained, unless the court waives such requirement. If the Cayman Islands Registrar of Companies is satisfied that the requirements of the Companies Act (which includes certain other formalities) have been complied with, the Registrar of Companies will register the plan of merger or consolidation. Where the merger or consolidation involves a foreign company, the procedure is similar, save that with respect to the foreign company, the directors of the Cayman Islands exempted company are required to make a declaration to the effect that,having made due enquiry, they are of the opinion that the following requirements have been met: (i) that the merger or consolidation is permitted or not prohibited by the constitutional documents of the foreign company and by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the foreign company is incorporated, and that those laws and any requirements of those constitutional documents have been or will be complied with; (ii) that no petition or other similar proceeding has been filed and remains outstanding or order made or resolution adopted to wind up or liquidate the foreign company in any jurisdictions; (iii) that no receiver, trustee, administrator or other similar person has been appointed in any jurisdiction and is acting in respect of the foreign company, its affairs or its property or any part thereof; and (iv) that no scheme, order, compromise or other similar arrangement has been entered into or made in any jurisdiction whereby the rights of creditors of the foreign company are and continue to be suspended or restricted. Where the surviving company is the Cayman Islands exempted company, the directors of the Cayman Islands exempted company are further required to make a declaration to the effect that, having made due enquiry, they are of the opinion that the following requirements have been met: (i) that the foreign company is able to pay its debts as they fall due and that the merger or consolidation is bona fide and not intended to defraud unsecured creditors of the foreign company; (ii) that in respect of the transfer of any security interest granted by the foreign company to the surviving or consolidated company (a) consent or approval to the transfer has been obtained, released or waived; (b) the transfer is permitted by and has been approved in accordance with the constitutional documents of the foreign company; and (c) the laws of the jurisdiction of the foreign company with respect to the transfer have been or will be complied with; (iii) that the foreign company will, upon the merger or consolidation becoming effective, cease to be incorporated, registered or exist under the laws of the relevant foreign jurisdiction; and (iv) that there is no other reason why it would be against the public interest to permit the merger or consolidation. The Companies Act also includes statutory provisions that facilitate the reconstruction and amalgamation of companies,provided that such a scheme of arrangement is approved by (i) in respect of shareholders, 75% in value of the shareholders or each class of shareholder who attend and vote, either in person or by proxy, at a meeting or meetings convened for that purpose;or (ii) in respect of creditors, a majority in number representing 75% in value of creditors or each class of creditors who attend and vote, either in person or by proxy, at a meeting or meetings convened for that purpose. The convening of the scheme meetings and subsequently the terms of the arrangement must be sanctioned by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. While a dissenting shareholder has the right to express to the court the view that the transaction ought not to be approved, the court can be expected to approve the arrangement if it determines that: - the company is not proposing to act illegally or beyond the scope of its corporate authority and the statutory provisions as to majority vote have been complied with;- the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question and the classes properly delineated;- the scheme of arrangement is such as a businessperson would reasonably approve; and- the scheme of arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Companies Act or that would amount to a "fraud on the minority". If a scheme of arrangement is thus approved, the dissenting shareholders would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights, which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of a Delaware corporation. In addition, David Einhorn, Chairman of our Board of Directors, owns all of the outstanding Class B ordinary shares. As a result, we will not be able to enter into a scheme of arrangement without the approval of Mr. Einhorn as the holder of our Class B ordinary shares.

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 the following duties to the company: 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 Third Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association (the "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.

The historical returns of SILP and other funds managed by DME Advisors and its affiliates are not directly linked to our Class A ordinary shares. Results for the SILP 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.

DME Advisors and its affiliates, in addition to managing SILP, 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 SILP or to address possible or actual conflicts among the accounts they may manage, which may adversely affect SILP's investment returns, and, correspondingly, our investment returns. In addition, under Cayman Islands laws, Mr. Einhorn is not legally restricted from participating in 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, Ltd. 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 SILP, which may cause DME Advisors and its affiliates to effect trading in one account that may have an adverse effect on another account, including SILP. We do not have the contractual right to inspect the trading records of DME Advisors or its principals.

Under the SILP LPA, subject to our investment guidelines and certain other conditions, DME II, as the general partner of SILP, has complete and exclusive power and responsibility for all investment and investment management decisions to be undertaken on behalf of SILP and for managing and administering the affairs of SILP. DME II has the power and authority to do all things that it considers necessary or desirable to carry out its duties thereunder, including the power to delegate its authorities. While SILP is not, and is not expected to be registered as an "investment company" under the Investment Company Act or any comparable U.S. regulatory requirements, the general partner, or its designee, may resign or withdraw from SILP and may admit new limited partners to SILP without our consent, which may cause SILP to be deemed an "investment company" under the Investment Company Act.

DME Advisors may, from time to time, place its or its affiliates' representatives on creditors' committees and/or boards of certain companies in which SILP has invested. While such representation may enable DME Advisors to enhance the sale value of SILP's investments, it may also prevent SILP 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 may issue equity or debt securities in the future for a number of reasons, including to finance our operations and business strategy, to acquire assets or companies, to adjust our ratio of debt to equity, or in connection with our incentive and stock option plans. Any issuance of equity securities, including the issuance of shares, if any, upon conversion of the convertible notes, could dilute the interests of our existing shareholders, including holders who have previously received shares upon conversion of their notes, and could substantially affect the trading price of our Class A ordinary shares and the convertible notes. In addition, conversion of our convertible notes into our Class A ordinary shares could depress the price of our Class A ordinary shares.

Our Articles provide that we have the option, but not the obligation, to require a shareholder to sell its Class A ordinary shares for their fair market value to us, to other shareholders or to third parties if our Board of Directors determines that ownership of our Class A ordinary shares by such shareholder may result in adverse tax, regulatory or legal consequences to us, any of our subsidiaries or any of our shareholders and that such sale is necessary to avoid or cure such adverse consequences.

We are an exempted company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands and conduct a majority of our operations outside the United States. A significant amount of our assets are located outside the United States. A majority of our officers and directors reside outside the United States and substantial portion of the assets of those persons are located outside of the United States. As a result, it could be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against these individuals outside of the United States in the event that you believe that your rights have been infringed upon under the applicable securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Cayman Islands could render you unable to enforce a judgment against our assets or the assets of our directors and officers. Our corporate affairs are governed by our Articles, the Companies Act and the common law of the Cayman Islands. The rights of shareholders to take legal action against our directors and us, actions by minority shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors to us under Cayman Islands law are to a large extent governed by the common law of the Cayman Islands. The common law of the Cayman Islands is derived in part from judicial precedent in the Cayman Islands as well as from English common law, which has persuasive, but not binding, authority on a court in the Cayman Islands. The rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under the laws of the Cayman Islands are not as clearly defined as under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in jurisdictions in the United States. Therefore, you may have more difficulty protecting your interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction in the United States, due to the comparatively less well developed Cayman Islands law in this area. Shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies such as ours have no general rights under Cayman Islands law to inspect corporate records and accounts or to obtain copies of lists of shareholders. Our directors have discretion under our Articles to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, our corporate records may be inspected by our shareholders, but are not obliged to make them available to our shareholders. This may make it more difficult for you to obtain the information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest. The courts of the Cayman Islands are unlikely (i) to recognize or enforce against us judgments of courts of the United States predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States or any state; and (ii) in original actions brought in the Cayman Islands, to impose liabilities against us predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States or any state, so far as the liabilities imposed by those provisions are penal in nature. In those circumstances, although there is no statutory enforcement in the Cayman Islands of judgments obtained in the United States, the courts of the Cayman Islands will recognize and enforce a foreign money judgment of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction without retrial on the merits based on the principle that a judgment of a competent foreign court imposes upon the judgment debtor an obligation to pay the sum for which judgment has been given provided certain conditions are met. For a foreign judgment to be enforced in the Cayman Islands, such judgment must be final and conclusive and for a liquidated sum, and must not be in respect of taxes or a fine or penalty, inconsistent with a Cayman Islands judgment in respect of the same matter, impeachable on the grounds of fraud or obtained in a manner, or be of a kind the enforcement of which is, contrary to natural justice or the public policy of the Cayman Islands (awards of punitive or multiple damages may well be held to be contrary to public policy). A Cayman Islands Court may stay enforcement proceedings if concurrent proceedings are being brought elsewhere. We are not aware nor have we been advised of any reported class action having been brought in a Cayman Islands court. Derivative actions have been brought in the Cayman Islands courts, and the Cayman Islands courts have confirmed the availability for such actions. In most cases, we will be the proper plaintiff in any claim based on a breach of duty owed to us,and a claim against (for example) our officers or directors usually may not be brought by a shareholder. However, based both on Cayman Islands authorities and on English authorities, which would in all likelihood be of persuasive authority and be applied by a court in the Cayman Islands, exceptions to the foregoing principle apply in circumstances in which: - a company is acting, or proposing to act, illegally or beyond the scope of its authority;- the act complained of, although not beyond the scope of the authority, could be effected if duly authorized by more- than the number of votes which have actually been obtained; or- those who control the company are perpetrating a "fraud on the minority." A shareholder may have a direct right of action against us where the individual rights of that shareholder have been infringed or are about to be infringed. Subject to limited exceptions, under Cayman Islands law, a minority shareholder may not bring a derivative action against our Board of Directors.

In certain circumstances, the total voting power of our Class A ordinary shares held by any one person will be reduced to less than 9.9% of the total issued and outstanding ordinary shares, and the total voting power of the Class B ordinary shares will be reduced to 9.5% of the total voting power of the total issued and outstanding ordinary shares. In the event a holder of our Class A ordinary shares acquires shares representing 9.9% or more of the total voting power of our total ordinary shares or the Class B ordinary shares represent more than 9.5% of the total voting power of our total outstanding shares, there will be an effective reallocation of the voting power of the Class A ordinary shares or Class B ordinary shares which may cause a shareholder to acquire 5% or more of the voting power of the total ordinary shares. Such a shareholder may become subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements of Sections 13(d) and (g) of the Exchange Act. Such a reallocation also may result in an obligation to amend previous filings made under Section 13(d) or (g) of the Exchange Act. Under our Articles, we have no obligation to notify shareholders of any adjustments to their voting power. Shareholders should consult their own legal counsel regarding the possible reporting requirements under Section 13 of the Exchange Act. At December 31, 2022, David Einhorn owned 18.0% of the issued and outstanding ordinary shares, which given that each Class B share is entitled to ten votes, causes him to exceed the 9.5% limitation imposed on the total voting power of the Class B ordinary shares. Thus, the voting power held by the Class B ordinary shares that is in excess of the 9.5% limitation will be reallocated pro-rata to holders of Class A ordinary shares according to their percentage interest in the Company. However, no shareholder will be allocated voting rights that would cause it to have 9.9% or more of the total voting power of our ordinary shares. The allocation of the voting power of the Class B ordinary shares to a holder of Class A ordinary shares will depend upon the total voting power of the Class B ordinary shares outstanding, as well as the percentage of Class A ordinary shares held by a shareholder and the other holders of Class A ordinary shares. Accordingly, we cannot estimate with precision what multiple of a vote per share a holder of Class A ordinary shares will be allocated as a result of the anticipated reallocation of voting power of the Class B ordinary shares.

Passive Foreign Investment Company. Significant potential adverse United States federal income tax consequences, including certain reporting requirements, generally apply to any United States person who owns shares in a passive foreign investment company, or a "PFIC". We do not expect that any of Greenlight Capital Re, Greenlight Re, or GRIL will be a PFIC for the current taxable year. However, we cannot provide assurance that none of Greenlight Capital Re, Greenlight Re, or GRIL will be a PFIC for the current taxable year or any future taxable year. In general, any of Greenlight Capital Re, Greenlight Re or GRIL would be a PFIC for a taxable year if either (i) 75% or more of its income constitutes "passive income" or (ii) 50% or more of its assets produce "passive income", or are held for the production of passive income. Passive income generally includes interest, dividends and other investment income. However, under an "active insurance" exception, income is not treated as passive if it is derived in the active conduct of an insurance business by a qualifying insurance corporation. A qualifying insurance corporation is an insurance company which has applicable insurance liabilities, as reported on its annual financial statement, exceeding 25% of its total assets. Applicable insurance liabilities means, with respect to our property and casualty reinsurance business, reserves for loss and loss adjustment expenses, and excluding unearned premium reserves. The exception for insurance companies is intended to ensure that a qualifying insurance entity's income is not treated as passive income, except to the extent such income is attributable to financial reserves in excess of the reasonable needs of the insurance business. We intend to operate our business with financial reserves and applicable insurance liabilities at levels that should not cause us to be deemed PFICs, although we cannot provide assurance that we will be successful in structuring our operations to meet such levels nor can we ensure that the IRS will not successfully challenge our status. If we are unable to underwrite sufficient amount of risks and maintain a sufficient amount of applicable insurance liabilities, any of Greenlight Capital Re, Greenlight Re or GRIL may become a PFIC. In addition, sufficient risk must be transferred under an insurance entity's contracts with its insureds in order to qualify for the insurance exception. Whether our insurance contracts possess adequate risk transfer for purposes of determining whether income under our contracts is insurance income, and whether we are predominantly engaged in an insurance business, are subjective in nature and there is little authoritative tax guidance on these issues. We cannot provide assurance that the IRS will not successfully challenge our interpretation of the scope of the active insurance company exception and our qualification for the exception. Further, the IRS may issue regulatory or other guidance that causes us to fail to qualify for the active insurance company exception on a prospective or retroactive basis. Therefore, we cannot provide assurance that we will satisfy the exception for insurance companies and will not be treated as PFICs currently or in the future. Controlled Foreign Corporation. United States persons who, directly or indirectly or through attribution rules, own 10% or more of the total combined voting power or value of our shares, which we refer to as United States 10% shareholders, may be subject to the controlled foreign corporation, or CFC, rules. Under the CFC rules, each United States 10% shareholder must annually include their pro-rata share of the CFC's "subpart F income" and "global intangible low-tax income" in their gross income in the year earned by the CFC, even if no distributions are made. In general, a foreign insurance company will be treated as a CFC only if during the taxable year United States 10% shareholders collectively own more than 25% of the total combined voting power or total value of the entity's shares. We believe that the dispersion of our Class A ordinary shares among holders and the restrictions placed on transfer, issuance or repurchase of our Class A ordinary shares , will in most cases prevent shareholders who acquire Class A ordinary shares from being United States 10% shareholders. We cannot provide assurance, however, that these rules will not apply to you if you are or become a United States 10% shareholder. In particular, recent changes to the definition of a United States 10% Shareholder, whereby both vote and value are tested, and recent changes to the constructive ownership rules, whereby shares owned by non-United States persons can be attributed to United States persons, may increase the likelihood of these rules applying. If you are a United States person, we strongly urge you to consult your own tax advisor concerning the CFC rules. Related Person Insurance Income. If: - our gross income attributable to insurance or reinsurance policies where the direct or indirect insureds are our direct or indirect United States shareholders or persons related to such United States shareholders equals or exceeds 20% of our gross insurance income in any taxable year; and- direct or indirect insureds and persons related to such insureds owned directly or indirectly 20% or more of the voting power or value of our stock,a United States person who owns Class A ordinary shares directly or indirectly on the last day of the taxable year would most likely be required to include their pro-rata share of our related person insurance income for the taxable year in their income. This amount would be determined as if such related person insurance income were distributed proportionally to United States persons at that date. We do not expect that we will knowingly enter into reinsurance agreements in which, in the aggregate, the direct or indirect insureds are, or are related to, owners of 20% or more of the Class A ordinary shares. We do not believe that the 20% gross insurance income threshold will be met. However, we cannot provide assurance that this is or will continue to be the case. Consequently, we cannot provide assurance that a person who is a direct or indirect United States shareholder will not be required to include amounts in its income in respect of related person insurance income in any taxable year. If a United States shareholder is treated as disposing of shares in a foreign insurance corporation that has related person insurance income and in which United States persons own 25% or more of the voting power or value of the entity's shares, any gain from the disposition will generally be treated as a dividend to the extent of the United States shareholder's portion of the corporation's undistributed earnings and profits that were accumulated during the period that the United States shareholder owned the shares. In addition, the shareholder will be required to comply with certain reporting requirements, regardless of the amount of shares owned by the direct or indirect United States shareholder. Although not free from doubt, we believe these rules should not apply to dispositions of Class A ordinary shares because Greenlight Capital Re is not directly engaged in the insurance business and because proposed United States Treasury regulations applicable to this situation appear to apply only in the case of shares of corporations that are directly engaged in the insurance business. We cannot provide assurance, however, that the IRS will interpret the proposed regulations in this manner or that the proposed regulations will not be promulgated in final form in a manner that would cause these rules to apply to dispositions of Class A ordinary shares.

If you are a United States tax-exempt organization you may recognize unrelated business taxable income if a portion of our subpart F insurance income is allocated to you. In general, subpart F insurance income will be allocated to you if we are a CFC as discussed above and you are a United States 10% shareholder or there is related person insurance income and certain exceptions do not apply. Although we do not believe that any United States persons will be allocated subpart F insurance income, we cannot provide assurance that this will be the case. If you are a United States tax-exempt organization, we advise you to consult your own tax advisor regarding the risk of recognizing unrelated business taxable income.