RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

AND PREFERENCE SHARE DIVIDENDS OF RENAISSANCERE

For purposes of computing the following ratios of RenaissanceRe, earnings consist of pre-tax income from continuing operations before adjustment for non-controlling interest in consolidated subsidiaries or undistributed income from equity method investees, plus fixed charges to the extent that these charges are included in the determination of earnings. Fixed charges consist of interest costs plus preference dividends and one-third of minimum rental payments under operating leases (estimated by our management to be the interest factor of these rentals).

4

Table of Contents

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES OF RRNAH

For purposes of computing the following ratios of RRNAH, earnings consist of pre-tax income from continuing operations before adjustment for non-controlling interest in consolidated subsidiaries or undistributed income from equity method investees, plus fixed charges to the extent that these charges are included in the determination of earnings. Fixed charges consist of interest costs plus preference dividends and one-third of minimum rental payments under operating leases (estimated by our management to be the interest factor of these rentals).

Neither RenaissanceRe Finance nor the Capital Trust had any operations during the periods set forth above.

RISK FACTORS

Before you invest in our securities, you should carefully consider the risks involved. In addition, we may include additional risk factors in a prospectus supplement to the extent there are additional risks related to the securities offered by that prospectus supplement. Accordingly, you should carefully consider the following risk factors and any additional risk factors included in the relevant prospectus supplement:

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMPANY

Our exposure to catastrophic events and other exposures that we cover could cause our financial results to vary significantly from one period to the next.

Our largest product based on total gross premiums written is property catastrophe reinsurance. We also sell lines of specialty reinsurance and certain insurance products that are exposed to catastrophe risk. We therefore have a large overall exposure to natural and man-made disasters, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, winter storms, freezes, floods, fires, tornados, hailstorms, drought and other natural or man-made disasters, such as acts of terrorism. As a result, our operating results have historically been, and we expect will continue to be, significantly affected by relatively few events of a large magnitude.

We expect claims from catastrophic events to cause substantial volatility in our financial results for any fiscal quarter or year; moreover, catastrophic claims could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Our ability to write new business could also be affected. We believe that increases in the value and geographic concentration of insured property, particularly along coastal regions, and the effects of inflation may continue to increase the severity of claims from catastrophic events in the future.

From time to time, we expect to have greater exposures in one or more specific geographic areas than our overall share of the worldwide market would unilaterally suggest. Accordingly, when and if catastrophes occur in these areas, we may experience relatively more severe net negative impacts from such events than our competitors. In particular, the Company has historically had a relatively large percentage of its coverage exposures concentrated in the state of Florida.

5

Table of Contents

We may fail to execute our strategy, which would impair our future financial results.

Historically, our principal product has been property catastrophe reinsurance. As we have expanded and in the future may expand into other lines of business, new markets or jurisdictions, we have been and will be presented with new and expanded challenges and risks which we may not manage successfully. Businesses and operations in early stages of development present substantial business, financial and operational risks and may suffer significant losses. For example, our potential future expansion may require us to develop new client and customer relationships, supplement existing or build new operating procedures, hire staff, develop and install management information and other systems, as well as take numerous other steps to implement our strategies. If we fail to continue to develop the necessary infrastructure, or otherwise fail to execute our strategy, our results from these newer lines of business or centers of operations will likely suffer, perhaps substantially, and our future financial results may be adversely affected.

In addition, the execution of our strategy as well as factors such as evolving regulatory requirements may place increased demands on our financial, managerial and human resources. For example, we may need to attract additional professionals, and to the extent we are unable to attract such additional professionals, our existing financial, managerial and human resources may be strained. Our future profitability depends in part on our ability to further develop our resources and effectively manage more complex operational requirements, and our inability to do so may impair our future financial results. It is also possible that a determination to retract or diminish an initiative we had previously determined to incubate or explore could be poorly executed, leading to restructuring or other losses, or to executive distraction, exceeding our estimates.

A decline in the ratings assigned to our financial strength may adversely impact our business, perhaps materially so.

Third party rating agencies assess and rate the financial strength of reinsurers and insurers, such as Renaissance Reinsurance and certain of our other operating subsidiaries and joint ventures. These ratings are based upon criteria established by the rating agencies. Periodically, the rating agencies evaluate us and may downgrade or withdraw their financial strength ratings in the future if we do not continue to meet the criteria of the ratings previously assigned to us. The financial strength ratings assigned by rating agencies to reinsurance or insurance companies are based upon factors relevant to policyholders and are not directed toward the protection of investors.

These ratings are subject to periodic review and may be revised or revoked by the agencies which issue them. In addition, from time to time one or more rating agencies have effected changes in their capital models and rating methodologies, which have generally served to increase the amounts of capital required to support the ratings, and it is possible that legislation arising as a result of the ongoing economic downturn may result in additional changes.

Negative ratings actions in the future could have an adverse effect on our ability to fully realize the market opportunities we currently expect to participate in. In addition, our reinsurance contracts frequently contain provisions permitting our customers to cancel coverage pro-rata if our relevant operating subsidiary is downgraded below a certain rating level. Whether a client would exercise this right would depend, among other factors, on the reason for such a downgrade, the extent of the downgrade, the prevailing market conditions and the pricing and availability of replacement reinsurance coverage. Therefore, in the event of a downgrade, it is not possible to predict in advance the extent to which this cancellation right would be exercised, if at all, or what effect such cancellations would have on our financial condition or future operations, but such effect potentially could be material. To date, we are not aware that we have experienced such a cancellation.

Our ability to compete with other reinsurers and insurers, and our results of operations, could be materially adversely affected by any such ratings downgrade. For example, following a ratings downgrade we might lose customers to more highly rated competitors or retain a lower share of the business of our customers.

For the current ratings of certain of our subsidiaries and joint ventures, refer to “Item 1. Business, Ratings” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Commission on February 19, 2010, which is incorporated by reference herein.

6

Table of Contents

Our claims and claim expense reserves are subject to inherent uncertainties.

Our claims and claim expense reserves reflect our estimates using actuarial and statistical projections at a given point in time of our expectations of the ultimate settlement and administration costs of claims incurred. Although we use actuarial and computer models as well as historical reinsurance and insurance industry loss statistics, we also rely heavily on management’s experience and judgment to assist in the establishment of appropriate claims and claim expense reserves. However, because of the many assumptions and estimates involved in establishing reserves, the reserving process is inherently uncertain. Our estimates and judgments are based on numerous factors, and may be revised as additional experience and other data become available and are reviewed, as new or improved methodologies are developed, as loss trends and claims inflation impact future payments, or as current laws or interpretations thereof change.

Our specialty reinsurance and Insurance operations are expected to produce claims which at times can only be resolved through lengthy and unpredictable litigation. The measures required to resolve such claims, including the adjudication process, present more reserve challenges than property losses (which tend to be reported comparatively more promptly and to be settled within a relatively shorter period of time). Actual net claims and claim expenses paid may deviate, perhaps substantially, from the reserve estimates reflected in our financial statements.

We expect that some of our assumptions or estimates will prove to be inaccurate, and that our actual net claims and claim expenses paid will differ, perhaps substantially, from the reserve estimates reflected in our financial statements. To the extent that our actual claims and claim expenses exceed our expectations, we would be required to increase claims and claim expense reserves. This would reduce our net income by a corresponding amount in the period in which the deficiency is identified. To the extent that our actual claims and claim expenses are lower than our expectations, we would be required to decrease claims and claim expense reserves and this would increase our net income.

Estimates of losses are based on a review of potentially exposed contracts, information reported by and discussions with counterparties, and our estimate of losses related to those contracts and are subject to change as more information is reported and becomes available.

As an example, our estimates of losses from catastrophic events, such as the 2010 Chilean earthquake and European windstorm Xynthia, the 2008 hurricanes Gustav and Ike, and the 2005 hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, are based on factors including currently available information derived from the Company’s claims information from certain customers and brokers, industry assessments of losses from the events, proprietary models, and the terms and conditions of our contracts. Due to the size and unusual complexity of the legal and claims issues relating to these events, particularly the Chilean earthquake and hurricanes Katrina and Ike, meaningful uncertainty remains regarding total covered losses for the insurance industry and, accordingly, several of the key assumptions underlying our loss estimates. In addition, actual losses from these events may increase if our reinsurers or other obligors fail to meet their obligations to us. Our actual losses from these events will likely vary, perhaps materially, from these current estimates due to the inherent uncertainties in reserving for such losses, including the nature of the available information, the potential inaccuracies and inadequacies in the data provided by customers and brokers, the inherent uncertainty of modeling techniques and the application of such techniques, the effects of any demand surge on claims activity and complex coverage and other legal issues.

Unlike the loss reserves of U.S. insurers, the loss reserves of our Bermuda-licensed insurers, including Renaissance Reinsurance, DaVinci and Glencoe Insurance Ltd. (“Glencoe Insurance”), are not regularly examined by insurance regulators, although, as registered Bermuda insurers, we are required to submit opinions of our approved loss reserve specialist with the annual statutory financial returns of our Bermuda-licensed insurers with regard to their respective loss and loss expenses provisions. The loss reserve specialist, who will normally be a qualified actuary, must be approved by the Bermuda Monetary Authority.

7

Table of Contents

Because we principally depend on brokers and other intermediaries for a preponderance of our revenue, loss of business provided by them could adversely affect us.

Our Reinsurance business markets insurance and reinsurance products worldwide exclusively through insurance and reinsurance brokers. Three brokerage firms accounted for 90.1% of our Reinsurance segment gross premiums written for the year ended December 31, 2009. Subsidiaries and affiliates of AON Benfield, Marsh Inc. and the Willis Group accounted for approximately 58.7%, 20.9% and 10.5%, respectively, of our Reinsurance segment gross premiums written in 2009.

Our Insurance business markets a significant portion of its insurance and reinsurance products through third party program managers. In recent years, our Insurance business has similarly experienced an increased concentration of production from a smaller number of intermediaries. Third party program managers accounted for 35.7% of our Insurance segment gross premiums written for the year ended December 31, 2009.

The loss of a substantial portion of the business provided by our brokers, third party program managers or other intermediaries would have a material adverse effect on us. Our ability to market our products could decline as a result of any loss of the business provided by these brokers and/or third party program managers and it is possible that our premiums written would decrease.

We could be adversely affected by legislative initiatives which could have the impact of reducing demand for our products and services, diminishing the growth or current size of the markets we serve, or otherwise adversely impacting our markets, customers or us.

In April 2010, the Committee on Financial Services (the “Committee”) of the House of Representatives (the “House”) adopted H.R. 2555, titled the Homeowners’ Defense Act of 2010.  H.R. 2555 would, if enacted, authorize the establishment of a federal disaster reinsurance program; authorize the U.S. Treasury to sell reinsurance to certain state-sponsored insurers and reinsurers (exclusive of private companies); authorize the U.S. Treasury to enter into commitments to guarantee the principal and interest of bonds issued by eligible state-sponsored insurers and reinsurers following a disaster; and authorize the establishment of a National Catastrophe Risk Consortium, which would allow multiple participating states to pool their respective catastrophic risk insurance or reinsurance wind pools or other residual markets among each other. If enacted as adopted by the Committee, under the bill the Treasury would have considerable discretion in implementing the federal reinsurance and debt guarantee programs, including establishing eligibility and setting the terms for reinsurance contracts. Based on the criteria set forth in the legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (the “CBO”) has reported that several existing insurance entities would be eligible to purchase reinsurance or obtain a debt guarantee commitment from the Treasury under the bill over the next five years, including the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (the “FHCF”), the California Earthquake Authority (the “CEA”), the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (“TWIA”), Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance, and certain other state Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plans. The CBO estimated Florida Citizens Property Insurance (“Florida Citizens”), which currently has the highest market share of homeowners’ coverage in Florida, would not be eligible for either of the proposed Treasury programs during the next five years, or for “special treatment” during the five-year transition period contemplated by H.R. 2555, because actuaries for Florida Citizens and the Florida state government have concluded that Florida Citizens has been charging and continues to charge below actuarially sound premiums and because Florida has another program (the FHCF) that the CBO expects to meet the eligibility criteria under the legislation. At this time, H.R. 2555 has not been voted on by the full House of Representatives, or introduced in the U.S. Senate.

While this legislation has been and we believe will continue to be vigorously opposed, if enacted this bill would likely further erode the role of private market catastrophe reinsurers and could adversely impact our financial results, perhaps materially. Moreover, this or similar legislation would, we believe, likely contribute to the growth of state entities offering insurance or reinsurance coverages, or to their inception or alteration, in a manner adverse to the industry, our clients or to us, potentially adversely impacting us. The CBO estimated that the premiums offered by the federal government under the programs which would be authorized by H.R. 2555 would be below those offered by the private market, and accordingly estimated that over time, each participating program would purchase all of its reinsurance through the new federal program.

8

Table of Contents

In 2007 the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program (the “NFIP”) to cover damage to or loss of real or related personal property located in the U.S. arising from any windstorm (any hurricane, tornado, cyclone, typhoon, or other wind event). In 2008 the Senate rejected this proposal and passed an alternative version of the NFIP renewal bill which would not add wind to the program. Through May 1010, Congress has failed to pass a long-term renewal of NFIP and instead has passed a series of short term extensions of the program. The House of Representatives and the Federal Emergency Management Agency are also exploring the possibility of new legislation which might reshape the federal flood insurance program, perhaps substantially. At this juncture, it is not possible to predict whether the program will indeed be amended, and, if so, whether any such changes would impact us. A failure to renew the NFIP program, particularly if unanticipated by industry participants, could have dislocating impacts on the industry and our customers and potentially have an adverse impact on us.

In 2007, Florida enacted legislation which enabled the FHCF to offer increased amounts of coverage in addition to the mandatory coverage amount, at below-market rates. Further, the legislation expanded the ability of the state-sponsored insurer, Florida Citizens, to compete with private insurance companies, such as ours and other companies that cede business to us. This legislation reduced the role of the private insurance and reinsurance markets in Florida, a key market of ours. In May 2009, the Florida legislature took steps to strengthen the financial condition of the FHCF and Florida Citizens, which a government-appointed task force determined to have been impaired by such things as the crisis in the credit markets, widespread rate inadequacy, and issues arising out of the application of discounts for housing retrofits and mitigation features. A bill was passed in 2009 that would permit Florida Citizens to raise its rates by up to 10% starting in 2010 and every year thereafter until its current shortfall is corrected and Florida Citizens has sufficient funds to pay its claims and expenses. This legislation also increased the rates for the FHCF and incrementally staged reductions in the amount of its coverage. In 2010, legislation was passed by the Florida Legislature titled S.B. 2044 which would have, we believe, implemented additional incremental reforms which would have benefited the Florida market. That legislation was subsequently vetoed by the Governor. It is possible that in the future Florida will cease to continue to reform its market or will take new actions to diminish private market demand for insurance or reinsurance. Similarly, it is possible that other states, particularly those with Atlantic or Gulf Coast exposures, may enact new or expanded legislation based on some version of the earlier Florida precedent, which would further diminish aggregate private market demand for our products. These risks would likely increase if H.R. 2555 or similar legislation were to be passed by the full Congress; which legislation individually or in the aggregate could erode the role of private market catastrophe reinsurers in the United States and could adversely impact our financial results, perhaps materially. Moreover, we believe that numerous modeled potential catastrophes could exceed the actual or politically acceptable bonded capacity of the FHCF, which could lead either to a severe dislocation or the necessity of federal intervention in the Florida market, either of which would adversely impact the private insurance and reinsurance industry.

The terms of the Federal Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Program may change and adversely impact us.

We currently participate in the Federal Multiple Peril Crop Insurance Program (the “MPCI”) sponsored by the Risk Management Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the “RMA”). In recent years, crop insurance premiums, which are primarily driven by MPCI policies, have become an increasingly larger portion of our business, totaling $290.3 million of gross premiums written in 2009, and representing 54.7% of the total gross premiums written in our Insurance segment in 2009. In June 2008, we purchased the assets of Agro National, LLC, a managing general underwriter that has been producing MPCI business on our behalf since 2004, for a purchase price of $80.5 million, and we have goodwill and intangible assets of $58.1 million on our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2009 as a result of this acquisition.

On June 10 , 2010, the RMA released a putatively final draft of an amended version of its Standard Reinsurance Agreement (the “SRA”), to which we and each other participant in the MPCI program are a party. We expect that the RMA will seek to have the SRA enacted as reflected in this draft, and we believe that the

9

Table of Contents

amendments will potentially adversely impact the financial results of MPCI insurers such as ours, beginning in 2011. Although the impacts to MPCI participants will not be as adverse as we estimate would have been the case had the earlier draft of the SRA been finalized and adopted, we currently expect that if the SRA is indeed adopted as reflected in the June 10, 2010 draft, we will receive lower expense reimbursements and will be likely to retain less of the underwriting profit we generate, which would negatively impact the profitability of our MPCI business, perhaps substantially so. While we might try to adjust to such changes by reducing costs, altering service levels, or taking other actions, it is possible any remedies or mitigating measures we might pursue would be insufficient or that we would not succeed in their execution, and the MPCI business could prove to be unattractive or unprofitable. Moreover, the changes in the SRA that the RMA is now seeking to finalize could instigate changes in the industry which would impact us, potentially adversely, such as by altering business practices and terms in respect of agents, encouraging consolidation, or fostering significant pricing or competitive pressures, any of which could reduce the probability that our crop insurance business is successful, or possibly result in us electing not to participate in the MPCI program in the future, any of which in turn could require us to impair all, or a portion, of the carrying value of the goodwill and intangible assets we have recorded in connection with the acquisition of Agro National, LLC.

Our utilization of brokers, program managers and other third parties to support our business exposes us to operational and financial risks.

Our Insurance operations rely largely on third party program managers, and other agents and brokers participating in our programs, to produce and service a substantial portion of our operations in this segment. In these arrangements, we typically grant the program manager the right to bind us to newly issued and renewal insurance policies, subject to underwriting guidelines we provide and other contractual restrictions and obligations. Should our third party program managers issue policies that contravene these guidelines, restrictions or obligations, we could nonetheless be deemed liable for such policies. Although we would intend to resist claims that exceed or expand on our underwriting intention, it is possible that we would not prevail in such an action, or that our program manager would be unable to substantially indemnify us for their contractual breach. We also rely on our third party program managers, third party administrators or other third parties we retain, to perform tasks, such as collecting premiums. We could also be exposed to the program manager’s or their producer’s operational risk, for example, but not limited to, contract wording errors, technological and staffing deficiencies and inadequate disaster recovery plans.

Although we have implemented monitoring and other oversight protocols, we cannot assure you that these measures will be sufficient to mitigate all of these exposures.

We are also subject to the risk that our successful third party program managers will not renew their programs with us. Although our contracts are generally not for defined terms, generally either party can cancel the contract in a relatively short period of time. We are also exposed to the risk that a termination of a program relationship may give rise to obligations in excess of those we estimate or to disputes, which could be costly or represent an operational distraction. While we believe our arrangements offer numerous benefits to our program participants, we cannot assure you we will retain the programs that produce business we believe to be attractive or that these programs or the underlying insureds will renew with us. Failure to retain or replace the third party program managers, or the program manager’s failure to retain or replace their producers, would impair our ability to execute our operational strategy, and our financial results could be adversely affected.

With respect to our Reinsurance operations we do not separately evaluate each of the individual risks assumed under our reinsurance contracts and, accordingly, like other reinsurers, are heavily dependent on the original underwriting decisions made by our ceding companies. We are therefore subject to the risk that our customers may not have adequately evaluated the risks to be reinsured, or that the premiums ceded to us will not adequately compensate us for the risks we assume, perhaps materially so.

10

Table of Contents

The emergence of matters which may impact certain of our coverages, such as the asserted trend toward potentially significant global warming, could cause us to underestimate our exposures and potentially adversely impact our financial results, perhaps significantly.

In our Reinsurance business, we use analytic and modeling capabilities that help us to assess the risk and return of each reinsurance contract in relation to our overall portfolio of reinsurance contracts. For catastrophe-exposed business in our Insurance segment, we also seek to utilize proprietary modeling tools that have been developed in conjunction with the modeling and other resources utilized in our Reinsurance operations. See “Item 1. Business, Underwriting and Enterprise Risk Management” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Commission on February 19, 2010, which is incorporated by reference herein.

In general, our techniques for evaluating catastrophe risk are much better developed than those for other classes of risk in businesses that we have entered into recently or may enter into in the future. Our models and databases may not accurately address the emergence of a variety of matters which might be deemed to impact certain of our coverages. Accordingly, our models may understate the exposures we are assuming and our financial results may be adversely impacted, perhaps significantly.

We believe, and believe the consensus view of current scientific studies substantiates, that changes in climate conditions, primarily global temperatures and expected sea levels, are likely to increase the severity and possibly the frequency of natural catastrophes relative to the historical experience over the past 100 years. We expect that this may increase claims under our property and casualty lines of business, particularly with respect to properties located in coastal areas, among others. While a substantial portion of our insureds fall into categories that may be adversely impacted by climate change, we have taken certain measures, to the extent permissible by law and prevailing market conditions, to mitigate against such losses by giving consideration to these risks in our underwriting decisions. We continuously monitor and adjust, as we believe appropriate, our risk management models to reflect our judgment of how to interpret current developments and information such as these studies. However, it is possible that, even after these assessments, we will have underestimated the frequency or severity of hurricanes or other catastrophes. To the extent broad environmental factors, exacerbated by climate change or otherwise, lead to increases in likely insured losses, particularly if those losses exceed expectations and the prior estimates of market participants, regulators or other stakeholders, the markets and clients we serve may be disrupted and adversely impacted, and we may be adversely affected, directly or indirectly. Further, certain of our investments such as cat-linked securities and property catastrophe managed joint ventures related to hurricane coverage, could also be adversely impacted by climate change.

Changing weather patterns and climatic conditions, such as global warming, may have added to the unpredictability and frequency of natural disasters in some parts of the world and created additional uncertainty as to future trends and exposures. In addition to longer term impacts as a result of changing climatic conditions, shorter term environmental crises, as a result of natural disasters or man-made events, could significantly increase insured losses and therefore negatively impact our financial results.

The ongoing weakness in business and economic conditions generally or specifically in the principal markets in which we do business could adversely affect our business and operating results.

While there have been indications of stabilization, including that the U.S. gross domestic product was reported to have experienced growth in the latter part of 2009 and in the first quarter of 2010, that trend may not continue. Moreover, while other key markets we serve have shown signs of stabilization, others have shown increasing signs of fiscal and macroeconomic instability, particularly certain Euro-dominated markets which are undergoing significant budgetary and financing challenges, the impacts of which remain uncertain and potentially far-reaching. Accordingly, we believe meaningful risk remains for continued uncertainty or disruptions in general economic conditions, including additional dislocations in the financial markets or asset classes or of a “double dip” recession in the U.S. or other key markets. In 2009, many governments, including the

11

Table of Contents

U.S. federal government, took substantial steps to stabilize economic conditions in an effort to increase liquidity and capital availability; these efforts contributed to significant changes in the financial markets in 2009, resulting in recoveries of asset valuations across many sectors, and increased access to sources of capital. However, if these stabilizing efforts were to cease prematurely, or if economic conditions otherwise cease to stabilize and again commence to deteriorate further, the business environment in our principal markets would be further adversely affected, which accordingly could adversely affect demand for the products sold by us or our customers. In addition, during a period of continued economic downturn like the current one, we believe our consolidated credit risk, reflecting our counterparty dealings with customers, agents, brokers, retrocessionaires, capital providers and parties associated with our investment portfolio, among others, is likely to be increased. Moreover, we continue to monitor the risk that our principal markets will experience increased inflationary conditions, which would, among other things, cause costs related to our claims and claim expenses to increase, and impact the performance of our investment portfolio. The onset, duration and severity of an inflationary period cannot be estimated with precision.

Our specialty reinsurance portfolio is also exposed to emerging risks arising from the ongoing economic downturn, including with respect to a potential increase of claims in directors & officers, errors & omissions, mortgage valuation, surety, casualty clash and other lines of business.

Some of our investments are relatively illiquid and are in asset classes that have been experiencing significant market valuation fluctuations.

Although we invest primarily in highly liquid securities in order to ensure our ability to pay valid claims in a prompt manner, we do hold certain investments that may lack liquidity, such as our alternative investments and bank loan fund investments. If we require significant amounts of cash on short notice in excess of our normal cash requirements or are required to post or return collateral in connection with our investment portfolio, we may have difficulty selling these investments in a timely manner, be forced to sell them for less than we otherwise would have been able to realize, or both.

At times, the reported value of our liquid and relatively illiquid types of investments and, our high quality, generally liquid asset classes, do not necessarily reflect the lowest current market price for the asset. If we were forced to sell certain of our assets in the current market, there can be no assurance that we will be able to sell them for the prices at which we have recorded them and we may be forced to sell them at significantly lower prices.

A reduction in market liquidity may make it difficult to value certain of our securities as trading becomes less frequent. As such, valuations may include assumptions or estimates that may be more susceptible to significant period-to-period changes which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial condition.

The valuation of much of our investment portfolio, as well as our analysis of the need for impairments, is highly subjective, increases the volatility of our reported results and could materially impact our financial position or results of operations.

The valuation of our investments varies by investment type and is based upon our periodic evaluation and assessment of known and inherent risks, including the need for any impairments associated with the respective asset class. Such evaluations and assessments are revised as conditions change and new information becomes available. Management updates its evaluations regularly and reflects impairments in operations as such evaluations are revised. There can be no assurance that our management has accurately assessed the level of impairments taken in our financial statements. Furthermore, additional impairments may need to be taken in the future, which could materially impact our financial position or results of operations. A decrease in our impairments, if any, while contributing to income, would also increase our reported volatility. Historical trends may not be indicative of future impairments.

12

Table of Contents

A decline in our investment performance could reduce our profitability and hinder our ability to pay claims promptly in accordance with our strategy.

We have historically derived a significant portion of our income from our invested assets, which are comprised of, among other things, fixed maturity securities, such as bonds, asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities and investments in bank loan funds, hedge funds and private equity partnerships. Accordingly, our financial results are subject to a variety of investment risks, including risks relating to general economic conditions, market volatility, interest rate fluctuations, foreign currency risk, liquidity risk and credit and default risk. Additionally, with respect to certain of our investments, we are subject to pre-payment or reinvestment risk.

Our invested assets have grown over the years and have come to effect a comparably greater contribution to our financial results. Accordingly, a failure to successfully execute our investment strategy could have a material adverse effect on our overall results. In the event of a significant or total loss in our investment portfolio, RenaissanceRe’s ability to pay any claims promptly in accordance with our strategy could be adversely affected.

The market value of our fixed maturity investments is subject to fluctuation depending on changes in various factors, including prevailing interest rates and widening credit spreads.

Increases in interest rates could cause the market value of our investment portfolio to decrease, perhaps substantially. Conversely, a decline in interest rates could reduce our investment yield, which would reduce our overall profitability. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions and other factors beyond our control. Any measures we take that are intended to manage the risks of operating in a changing interest rate environment may not effectively mitigate such interest rate sensitivity.

A portion of our investment portfolio is allocated to other investments which we expect to have different risk characteristics than our investments in traditional fixed maturity securities and short term investments. These other investments include private equity partnerships, hedge fund investments, senior secured bank loan funds and catastrophe bonds and are recorded on our consolidated balance sheet at fair value. The fair value of certain of these investments is generally established on the basis of the net valuation criteria established by the managers of such investments. These net asset valuations are determined based upon the valuation criteria established by the governing documents of the investments. Such valuations may differ significantly from the values that would have been used had ready markets existed for the shares, partnership interests or notes of the investments. Many of the investments are subject to restrictions on redemptions and sales which are determined by the governing documents and limit our ability to liquidate these investments in the short term. These investments expose us to market risks including interest rate risk, foreign currency risk, equity price risk and credit risk. In addition, we typically do not hold the underlying securities of these investments in our custody accounts, as a result, we generally do not have the ability to quantify the risks associated with these investments in the same manner for which we have for our fixed maturity securities. The performance of these investments is also dependent on the individual investment managers and the investment strategies. It is possible that the investment managers will leave and/or the investment strategies will become ineffective or that such managers will fail to follow our investment guidelines. Any of the foregoing could result in a material adverse change to our investment performance, and accordingly adversely affect our financial results.

We are exposed to counterparty credit risk, including with respect to reinsurance brokers.

In accordance with industry practice, we pay virtually all amounts owed on claims under our policies to reinsurance brokers, and these brokers, in turn, pay these amounts over to the insurers that have reinsured a portion of their liabilities with us (we refer to these insurers as ceding insurers). Likewise, premiums due to us by ceding insurers are virtually all paid to brokers, who then pass such amounts on to us. In many jurisdictions, if a broker were to fail to make such a payment to a ceding insurer, we would remain liable to the ceding insurer for the deficiency. Conversely, in many jurisdictions, when the ceding insurer pays premiums for these policies to reinsurance brokers for payment over to us, these premiums are considered to have been paid by the cedants and

13

Table of Contents

the ceding insurer will no longer be liable to us for those amounts, whether or not we have actually received the premiums. Consequently, in connection with the settlement of reinsurance balances, we assume a substantial degree of credit risk associated with brokers around the world.

We are also exposed to the credit risk of our customers, who, pursuant to their contracts with us, frequently pay us over time. Our premiums receivable at March 31, 2010 totaled $511.8 million, and these amounts are generally not collateralized. To the extent such customers become unable to pay future premiums, we would be required to recognize a downward adjustment to our premiums receivable in our financial statements. In 2009, we increased our allowance for potentially uncollectible premiums due to us, and we cannot assure you that such premiums will ever be collected or that additional amounts will not be required to be written down in future periods.

As a result of the current period of relatively weak economic conditions, our consolidated credit risk, reflecting our counterparty dealings with agents, brokers, customers, retrocessionaires, capital providers, parties associated with our investment portfolio and others has increased, perhaps materially so.

Results in certain of our newer or potentially expanding business lines such as our weather-linked and commodity derivatives trading business, could cause significant volatility in our consolidated financial statements.

Through Renaissance Trading Ltd. (“Renaissance Trading”) and RenRe Energy Advisors Ltd. (“REAL”), we sell certain financial products primarily to address weather risks, and engage in certain weather, energy and commodity derivatives trading activities. The trading markets for these derivatives are generally linked to energy and agriculture commodities, weather and other natural phenomena. We expect our results from these activities will be subject to volatility, both potentially as a result of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the event or events which might trigger counterparty payments under these contracts, and as a result of the potential for variance in the reportable fair value of these contracts between periods as a result of a wide number of potential factors. Moreover, our weather and energy products and trading business is generally accounted for at fair value and the value of our positions can change significantly which could have a significant negative impact on our financial results, or cause significant volatility in our results for any fiscal quarter or year. We currently expect that our results from these activities will increase on an absolute or relative basis over time, and that the duration of the derivative contracts in this portfolio will lengthen in the future.

While our current portfolio of such additional activities is not material to our consolidated results taken as a whole, it is possible that certain of these initiatives, individually or in the aggregate, could have a significant negative impact on our financial results or cause significant volatility in our results for any fiscal quarter or year. While we seek to impose a range of risk mitigants to manage these exposures, we can not assure you that these efforts will be successful.

Changes in U.S. tax law or regulations could increase the costs of our products and services or otherwise reduce our profitability.

In 2009, Congress conducted hearings relating to the tax treatment of offshore insurance and is reported to be considering legislation that would adversely affect reinsurance between affiliates and offshore insurance and reinsurance more generally. In July 2009, U.S. Rep. Richard Neal introduced one such proposal, H.R. 3424 (the “Neal Bill”), which provides that foreign insurers and reinsurers would be capped in deducting reinsurance premiums ceded from U.S. units to offshore affiliates. The Neal Bill, which was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, would limit deductions for related party reinsurance cessions to the average percentage of premium ceded to unrelated reinsurers (determined in reference to individual business lines). In the first quarter of 2010, the current administration released its 2010 initial budget, which included a proposal to raise revenue by enacting increased taxation on international reinsurance via means which appeared to have similarities with the Neal Bill. We can provide no assurance that this legislation or similar legislation will not be adopted. We believe that passage of such legislation would adversely affect us, perhaps materially.

14

Table of Contents

We are exposed to counterparty credit risks in connection with our energy related trading business.

We undertake energy related trading activities through our operating subsidiaries, including Renaissance Trading and REAL, where counterparty credit risk becomes a relevant factor. These operating subsidiaries execute weather, energy and commodity derivative transactions where the value of the derivatives at any point in time is dependent upon not only the market but also the viability of the counterparty. The failure or perceived weakness of any of our counterparties has the potential to expose us to risk of loss in these situations. Financial institutions, energy companies and hedge funds have historically been our most significant counterparties. The ongoing instability of the financial markets has resulted in many financial institutions becoming significantly less creditworthy, and we are exposed to these counterparty risks. Although our operating subsidiaries have credit risk management policies and procedures, we cannot assure you that any of the policies or procedures will be effective. While many of the original trading positions established in our energy related trading business are partially or substantially hedged, the effectiveness of those hedges depends on the willingness and ability to pay of the parties with whom we establish the hedge positions. The failure of our policies and procedures, or the failure of one or more of our counterparties, could result in losses that substantially exceed our expectations and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We currently expect these counterparty credit risks to grow over time, and we can not assure you that our risk mitigation plans will be successful.

U.S. taxing authorities could contend that one or more of our Bermuda subsidiaries are subject to U.S. corporate income tax, as a result of changes in law or regulations, or otherwise.

If the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) were to contend successfully that one or more of our Bermuda subsidiaries is engaged in a trade or business in the U.S., such subsidiary would, to the extent not exempted from tax by the U.S.-Bermuda income tax treaty, be subject to U.S. corporate income tax on that portion of its net income treated as effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, as well as the U.S. corporate branch profits tax. Although we would vigorously resist such a contention, if we were ultimately held to be subject to taxation, our earnings would correspondingly decline.

In addition, benefits of the U.S.-Bermuda income tax treaty which may limit any such tax to income attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by one or more of our Bermuda subsidiaries in the U.S. are only available to any of such subsidiaries if more than 50% of its shares are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by individuals who are Bermuda residents or U.S. citizens or residents. Our Bermuda subsidiaries may not be able to continually satisfy such beneficial ownership test or be able to establish it to the satisfaction of the IRS. Finally, it is unclear whether the U.S.-Bermuda income tax treaty (assuming satisfaction of the beneficial ownership test) applies to income other than premium income, such as investment income.

Retrocessional reinsurance may become unavailable on acceptable terms.

As part of our risk management, we buy reinsurance for our own account. This type of insurance when purchased to protect reinsurance companies is known as “retrocessional reinsurance.” Our primary insurance companies also buy reinsurance from third parties. From time to time, market conditions (including the ongoing economic downturn) have limited, and in some cases have prevented, insurers and reinsurers from obtaining reinsurance. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain our desired amounts of retrocessional reinsurance. In addition, even if we are able to obtain such retrocessional reinsurance, we may not be able to negotiate terms as favorable to us as in the past. This could limit the amount of business we are willing to write, or decrease the protection available to us as a result of large loss events.

When we purchase reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance for our own account, the insolvency, inability or reluctance of any of our reinsurers to make timely payments to us under the terms of our reinsurance agreements could have a material adverse effect on us. Generally, we believe that the “willingness to pay” of some reinsurers and retrocessionaires is declining, and that the overall industry ability to pay has also declined due to the ongoing economic downturn and other factors. This risk may be more significant to us at present than at most times in the past. At March 31, 2010, we had recorded $156.8 million of reinsurance recoverables, net of a valuation allowance of $6.0 million for uncollectible recoverables. We cannot assure you that such

15

Table of Contents

recoverables will ever be collected or that additional amounts will not be required to be written down in future periods. A large portion of our reinsurance recoverables are concentrated with a relatively small number of reinsurers. The risk of such concentration of retrocessional coverage may be increased by recent and future consolidation within the industry.

Emerging claim and coverage issues, or other litigation, could adversely affect us.

Unanticipated developments in the law as well as changes in social and environmental conditions could potentially result in unexpected claims for coverage under our insurance and reinsurance contracts. These developments and changes may adversely affect us, perhaps materially so. For example, we could be subject to developments that impose additional coverage obligations on us beyond our underwriting intent, or to increases in the number or size of claims to which we are subject. With respect to our specialty reinsurance and Insurance operations, these legal, social and environmental changes may not become apparent until some point in time after their occurrence. Therefore, we could be deemed liable for losses arising out of a matter that we had not anticipated or had attempted to contractually exclude. Moreover, irrespective of the clarity and inclusiveness of policy language, there can be no assurance that a court or arbitration panel will limit enforceability of policy language or not issue a ruling adverse to us. Our exposure to these uncertainties could be exacerbated by the increased willingness of some market participants to dispute insurance and reinsurance contract and policy wordings. Alternatively, potential efforts by us to exclude such exposures could, if successful, reduce the market’s acceptance of our related products. The full effects of these and other unforeseen emerging claim and coverage issues are extremely hard to predict. As a result, the full extent of our liability under our coverages may not be known for many years after a contract is issued. Our exposure to this uncertainty will grow as our “long-tail” casualty businesses grow, because in these lines claims can typically be made for many years, making them more susceptible to these trends than our traditional catastrophe business, which is typically more “short-tail.” In addition, we could be adversely affected by the growing trend of plaintiffs targeting participants in the property-liability insurance industry in purported class action litigation relating to claim handling and other practices. While we continually seek to improve the effectiveness of our contracts and claims capabilities, we may fail to mitigate our exposure to these growing uncertainties.

In addition, our ability to execute our business strategy is dependent on our ability to attract and retain a staff of qualified underwriters and service personnel. The location of our global headquarters in Bermuda may impede our ability to recruit and retain highly skilled employees. Under Bermuda law, non-Bermudians (other than spouses of Bermudians, holders of Permanent Residents’ Certificates and holders of Working Residents’ Certificates) may not engage in any gainful occupation in Bermuda without a valid government work permit. Substantially all of our officers are working in Bermuda under work permits that will expire over the next three years. The Bermuda government could refuse to extend these work permits, which would adversely impact us. In addition, a Bermuda government policy limits the duration of work permits to a total of six years, which is subject to certain exemptions only for key employees. A work permit is issued with an expiry date (up to five years) and no assurances can be given that any work permit will be issued or, if issued, renewed upon the expiration of the relevant term. If any of our senior officers were not permitted to remain in Bermuda, or if we experience delays or failures to obtain permits for a number of our professional staff, our operations could be disrupted and our financial performance could be adversely affected as a result.

In addition, in March 2009, U.S. Senator Carl Levin and Rep. Lloyd Doggett introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate and House, respectively, entitled the “Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act” (S. 506). An identical provision was proposed by Rep. Doggett in May 2010 in the International Tax Competitiveness Act of 2010 (H.R. 5328). If enacted, this legislation would, among other things, cause to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. tax purposes generally, entities whose shares are publicly traded on an established securities market, or whose gross assets are $50.0 million or more, if the “management and control” of such a corporation is, directly or indirectly, treated as occurring primarily within the U.S. The proposed legislation provides that a corporation will be so treated if substantially all of the executive officers and senior management of the corporation who exercise day-to-day responsibility for making decisions involving strategic, financial, and operational policies of the

16

Table of Contents

corporation are located primarily within the U.S. In addition, among other things, this proposed legislation would establish presumptions for entities and transactions in jurisdictions deemed to be “offshore secrecy jurisdictions” and would provide a list of such jurisdictions. To date, this legislation has not been approved by either the House of Representatives or the Senate. However, we can provide no assurance that this legislation or similar legislation will not ultimately be adopted. While we do not believe that the legislation would impact us, it is possible that an adopted bill would include additional or expanded provisions which could negatively impact us, or that the interpretation or enforcement of the current proposal, if enacted, would be more expansive or adverse than we currently estimate.

In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service released a revenue ruling (Rev. Rul. 2008-15), in which it publicly adopted the position that the federal excise tax imposed on insurance or reinsurance premiums paid to certain non-U.S. taxpayers (the “FET”) applies to reinsurance contracts between foreign insurance companies. Simultaneously, the IRS issued Announcement 2008-18, announcing a voluntary compliance initiative under which eligible non-U.S. insurers, reinsurers, and other agents, solicitors, and brokers may avoid IRS examination with respect to the FET. Under Section 4371 of the Internal Revenue Code, premiums on insurance policies, indemnity bonds, annuity contracts, and reinsurance contracts with respect to risks located in the U.S. paid by a U.S. person or by a non-U.S. person engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. are subject to the FET. The FET is imposed at the rate of 4% on casualty insurance and indemnity bonds; 1% on life, health, and annuity contracts; and 1% on reinsurance. The IRS has authority to collect the tax not only from the person paying the premium but also from any person who signs, sells or issues documents connected with the policy. In the pronouncements noted above, the IRS took the position that the FET cascades through reinsurance contracts on U.S. risks between foreign insurers. While commentators and market participants have questioned the statutory and jurisdictional basis for the IRS’s position, the IRS has continued to assert that, under this cascading theory, if a foreign insurance company insures or reinsures a U.S. risk that would be subject to the FET, and then obtains reinsurance for that risk from a second foreign insurance company, the FET applies to the reinsurance contract between the two foreign parties (unless a treaty exemption applies). Further, the IRS has asserted that FET applies even where the first foreign insurance company is exempt from FET under an applicable treaty. We did not elect to participate in the voluntary compliance initiative, and it is possible that the IRS would disagree with our position with respect to FET and the IRS’s cascade theory. In 2009, we were contacted by the IRS and asked to provide information with respect to the FET filings effected by Renaissance Reinsurance in 2008. In 2010, we were contacted by the IRS and asked to provide information with respect to the FET filings effected by Glencoe Insurance and DaVinci covering prior periods. While we believe our FET position is supported by a thorough analysis of relevant statutory and case law, and believe that the imposition of the IRS position would not give rise to material financial obligations, it is possible the IRS will continue to maintain its position and could prevail in any audit or other controversy or that the financial consequences of the IRS’s position would be greater than we currently estimate.

The loss of key senior members of management could adversely affect us.

Our success has depended, and will continue to depend, in substantial part upon our ability to attract and retain our senior officers. The loss of services of members of senior management in the future, and the uncertain transition of new members of our senior management team, may strain our ability to execute our operational initiatives. The loss of one or more of our senior officers could adversely impact our business by, for example, making it more difficult to retain customers or other business contacts whose relationship depends in part on the service of the departing officer. In general, the loss of the services of any members of our current senior management team may adversely affect our business, perhaps materially so. We do not currently maintain key man life insurance policies with respect to any of our employees.

17

Table of Contents

Regulatory challenges in the U.S. or elsewhere to our Bermuda operations’ claims of exemption from insurance regulation could restrict our ability to operate, increase our costs, or otherwise adversely impact us.

Renaissance Reinsurance, DaVinci and Top Layer Re are not licensed or admitted in any jurisdiction except Bermuda. Renaissance Reinsurance, Glencoe Insurance, DaVinci and Top Layer Re each conduct business only from their principal offices in Bermuda and do not maintain an office in the U.S. The insurance and reinsurance regulatory framework continues to be subject to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions, including the U.S. and various states within the U.S. If our Bermuda insurance or reinsurance operations become subject to the insurance laws of any state in the U.S., we could face inquiries or challenges to the future operations of these companies.

Moreover, we could be put at a competitive disadvantage in the future with respect to competitors that are licensed and admitted in U.S. jurisdictions. Among other things, jurisdictions in the U.S. do not permit insurance companies to take credit for reinsurance obtained from unlicensed or non-admitted insurers on their statutory financial statements unless security is posted. Our contracts generally require us to post a letter of credit or provide other security after a reinsured reports a claim. In order to post these letters of credit, issuing banks generally require collateral. It is possible that the European Union or other countries might adopt a similar regime in the future, or that U.S. rules could be altered in a way that treats Bermuda-based companies disproportionately. Any such development, or if we are unable to post security in the form of letters of credit or trust funds when required, could significantly and negatively affect our operations.

Glencoe Insurance and Lantana Insurance Ltd. (“Lantana”) are currently each eligible, non-admitted excess and surplus lines insurers in 48 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and are each subject to certain regulatory and reporting requirements of these jurisdictions. However, neither Glencoe Insurance nor Lantana is admitted or licensed in any U.S. jurisdiction; moreover, Glencoe Insurance only conducts business from Bermuda. Accordingly, the scope of Glencoe Insurance’s and Lantana’s activities in the U.S. is limited, which could adversely affect their ability to compete. Although surplus lines business is generally less regulated than the admitted market, the regulation of surplus lines insurance may undergo changes in the future. federal and/or state measures may be introduced and promulgated that could result in increased oversight and regulation of surplus lines insurance. Additionally, some recent and pending cases in Florida and California courts have raised potentially significant questions regarding surplus lines insurance in those states such as whether surplus lines insurers will be subject to policy form content, filing and approval requirements or additional taxes. In 2008, the Florida Supreme Court held that surplus lines insurers were subject to insurance law provisions governing policy delivery, policy forms, the payment of attorney fees and other matters; however, in 2009, the Florida legislature passed FL SB 1894 and HB 853 to clarify the limited applicability of Florida insurance law to surplus lines insurers (exempt from the provisions governing policy delivery, policy forms, etc.). This case could foreshadow more extensive oversight of surplus lines insurance by other jurisdictions, which could adversely impact our excess and surplus lines business, or the surplus lines markets for which we are a lead reinsurer.

Stonington, which writes insurance in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on an admitted basis, is subject to extensive regulation under state statutes which confer regulatory, supervisory and administrative powers on state insurance commissioners. Such regulation generally is designed to protect policyholders rather than investors or shareholders of the insurer. Our current or future business strategy could cause one or more of our currently unregulated non-insurance subsidiaries to become subject to some form of regulation. Any failure to comply with applicable laws could result in the imposition of significant restrictions on our ability to do business, and could also result in fines and other sanctions, any or all of which could adversely affect our financial results and operations.

We could be required to allocate considerable time and resources to comply with any new or additional regulatory requirements, and any such requirements may impact the operations of our insurance and/or non-insurance subsidiaries and ultimately could impact our financial condition as well. In addition, we could be adversely affected if a regulatory authority believed we had failed to comply with applicable law or regulation.

18

Table of Contents

We are unable to predict the effect that governmental actions for the purpose of stabilizing the financial markets will have on such markets generally or on the Company in particular.

In response to the financial crises affecting the banking system and financial markets and going concern threats to investment banks and other financial institutions, on October 3, 2008, then-President Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (“EESA”) into law. Pursuant to the EESA, the U.S. Treasury has the authority to, among other things, purchase up to $700 billion of mortgage-backed and other securities from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing the financial markets. Subsequently, on February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “ARRA”), a $787 billion stimulus bill for the purpose of stabilizing the economy by, among other things, creating jobs. The U.S. federal government and other governmental and regulatory bodies have taken or are considering taking other actions to address the ongoing weakness in business and economic conditions. Some companies that engage in both life and property casualty insurance lines of business, have participated in the ARRA programs and many believe that current market conditions have been adversely impacted by the government support of certain large market participants, which may have contributed to inadequate pricing conditions in respect of certain lines and coverages. We are unable to predict the effect that any such governmental actions will have on the financial markets generally or on the Company’s competitive position, business and financial condition in particular, though we are monitoring the situation as it evolves.

The U.S. Congress and the current administration have made, or called for consideration of, several additional proposals relating to a variety of issues with respect to financial regulation reform, including regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market, the establishment of a single-state system of licensure for U.S. and foreign reinsurers, executive compensation and others. We continue to carefully monitor relevant proposals and believe that these and other potential proposals could have varying degrees of impact on the Company ranging from minimal to material. At this time, we are unable to predict with certainty which, if any, proposals may be passed or what level of impact any such proposals could have on the Company.

Particularly within the Euro-zone, there is increasing market concern as to the potential default of government issuers. Should governments default on their obligations, there could be a negative impact on both the Company’s direct holdings, as well as non-government issues held within the country of default. These dynamics could also adversely impact certain of the clients and markets that we serve, which could directly or indirectly contribute to the weakening of the demand for our products and services.

Operational risks, including systems or human failures, are inherent in business, including ours.

We are subject to operational risks including fraud, employee errors, failure to document transactions properly or to obtain proper internal authorization, failure to comply with regulatory requirements or obligations under our agreements, information technology failures, or external events. Losses from these risks may occur from time to time and may be significant. As our business and operations grow more complex we are exposed to more risk in these areas.

Our modeling, underwriting and information technology and application systems are critical to our success. Moreover, our proprietary technology and application systems have been an important part of our underwriting strategy and our ability to compete successfully. We have also licensed certain systems and data from third parties. We cannot be certain that we will have access to these, or comparable, service providers, or that our information technology or application systems will continue to operate as intended. While we have implemented disaster recovery and other business contingency plans, a defect or failure in our internal controls or information technology and application systems could result in reduced or delayed revenue growth, higher than expected losses, management distraction, or harm to our reputation. We believe appropriate controls and mitigation procedures are in place to prevent significant risk of defect in our internal controls, information technology and application systems, but internal controls provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance as to the absence of errors or irregularities and any ineffectiveness of such controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business.

19

Table of Contents

We are exposed to risks in connection with our management of third party capital.

Certain of our operating subsidiaries manage third party capital, and in some cases our own capital. We manage our own capital and other capital through our managed joint venture business, our Lloyd’s managing agency business and certain other of our operations. Depending on the jurisdiction and form of organization, our operating subsidiaries may owe certain legal duties and obligations to third party investors (including reporting obligations) and are subject to a variety of often complex laws and regulations. Compliance with some of these laws and regulations requires significant management time and attention, particularly with respect to our newer businesses and ventures. Although we seek to continually monitor our policies and procedures to attempt to ensure compliance, faulty judgments, simple errors or mistakes, or the failure of our personnel to adhere to established policies and procedures, could result in our failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations which could result in significant liabilities, penalties or other losses to the Company, and seriously harm our business and results of operations.

We may be adversely affected by foreign currency fluctuations.

Our functional currency is the U.S. dollar; however, as we expand geographically, an increasing portion of our premium is, and likely will be, written in currencies other than the U.S. dollar and a portion of our claims and claim expense reserves is also in non-U.S. dollar currencies. Moreover, we maintain a portion of our cash and investments in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Although we generally seek to hedge significant non-U.S. dollar positions, we may, from time to time, experience losses resulting solely from fluctuations in the values of these foreign currencies, which could cause our consolidated earnings to decrease. In addition, failure to manage our foreign currency exposures could cause our results of operations to be more volatile.

The covenants in our debt agreements limit our financial and operational flexibility, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition.

We have incurred indebtedness, and may incur additional indebtedness in the future. At March 31, 2010, we had an aggregate of $549.1 million of indebtedness outstanding. Our indebtedness primarily consists of publicly traded notes and our revolving credit facilities. For more details on our indebtedness, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, Capital Resources” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Commission on February 19, 2010, which is incorporated by reference herein and our other filings with the Commission.

The agreements covering our indebtedness, particularly our bank loans, contain covenants that limit our ability, among other things, to borrow money, make particular types of investments or other restricted payments, sell assets, merge or consolidate. These agreements also require us to maintain specific financial ratios. If we fail to comply with these covenants or meet these financial ratios, the lenders under our credit facilities could declare a default and demand immediate repayment of all amounts owed to them, cancel their commitments to lend or issue letters of credit, or both, and require us to pledge additional or a different type of collateral.

Because we are a holding company, we are dependent on dividends and payments from our subsidiaries.

As a holding company with no direct operations, we rely on investment income, cash dividends and other permitted payments from our subsidiaries to make principal and interest payments on our debt and to pay dividends to our shareholders. The holding company does not have any operations and from time to time may not have significant liquid assets. Bermuda law and various U.S. insurance regulations may limit the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends. If our subsidiaries are restricted from paying dividends to us, we may be unable to pay dividends or to repay our indebtedness. For example, since Stonington may only pay dividends out of earned surplus, and Stonington’s earned surplus is negative, it cannot currently pay dividends without the applicable state insurance department approval.

20

Table of Contents

We may require additional capital in the future, which may not be available or only available on unfavorable terms.

We monitor our capital adequacy on a regular basis. The capital requirements of our business depend on many factors, including our ability to write new business successfully and to establish premium rates and reserves at levels sufficient to cover losses. Our ability to sell our reinsurance and insurance products is largely dependent upon the quality of our claims paying and financial strength ratings as evaluated by independent rating agencies. To the extent that our existing capital is insufficient to support our future operating requirements, we may need to raise additional funds through financings or limit our growth. While we do not currently expect to require additional external capital in the near term due to our strong current capital position, our operations are subject to the ever present potential for significant volatility in capital due to our exposure to potentially significant catastrophic events. Any further equity or debt financing, or capacity needed for letters of credit, if available at all, may be on terms that are unfavorable to us, particularly in light of the recent disruptions, uncertainty and volatility in the capital and credit markets. Our ability to raise such capital successfully would depend upon the facts and circumstances at the time, including our financial position and operating results, market conditions including in regards to prevailing valuation trends for securities in our industry, and applicable legal issues. Access to capital on attractive terms has been challenging for many companies during the ongoing global credit crisis , and may be further adversely impacted by the prevailing compressed market valuations for securities of reinsurers and insurers. If we are unable to obtain adequate capital if and when needed, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be adversely affected. In addition, in the future we may be unable to raise new capital for our managed joint ventures and other private alternative investment vehicles, which would reduce our future fee income and market capacity.

Acquisitions or strategic investments that we have made or may make could turn out to be unsuccessful.

As part of our strategy, we frequently monitor and analyze opportunities to acquire or make a strategic investment in new or other businesses that will not detract from our core operations. The negotiation of potential acquisitions or strategic investments as well as the integration of an acquired business or new personnel could result in a substantial diversion of management resources. Acquisitions could involve numerous additional risks such as potential losses from unanticipated litigation or levels of claims and inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset acquisition costs. Any failure by us to effectively limit such risks or implement our acquisitions or strategic investment strategies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Some aspects of our corporate structure may discourage third party takeovers and other transactions or prevent the removal of our current board of directors and management.

Some provisions of our Amended and Restated Bye-Laws have the effect of making more difficult or discouraging unsolicited takeover bids from third parties or preventing the removal of our current board of directors and management. In particular, our Bye-Laws prohibit transfers of our capital shares if the transfer would result in a person owning or controlling shares that constitute 9.9% or more of any class or series of our shares. In addition, our Byelaws reduce the total voting power of any shareholder owning, directly or indirectly, beneficially or otherwise, as described in our Bye-laws, more than 9.9% of our common shares to not more than 9.9% of the total voting power of our capital stock unless otherwise waived at the discretion of the Board. The primary purpose of these provisions is to reduce the likelihood that we will be deemed a “controlled foreign corporation” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code for U.S. federal tax purposes. However, these provisions may also have the effect of deterring purchases of large blocks of common shares or proposals to acquire us, even if some or a majority of our shareholders might deem these purchases or acquisition proposals to be in their best interests.

In addition, our Bye-Laws provide for, among other things:

21

Table of Contents

These Bye-Law provisions make it more difficult to acquire control of us by means of a tender offer, open market purchase, proxy contest or otherwise. These provisions are designed to encourage persons seeking to acquire control of us to negotiate with our directors, which we believe would generally best serve the interests of our shareholders. However, these provisions could have the effect of discouraging a prospective acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us. In addition, these Bye-Law provisions could prevent the removal of our current board of directors and management. To the extent these provisions discourage takeover attempts, they could deprive shareholders of opportunities to realize takeover premiums for their shares or could depress the market price of the shares.

We indirectly own certain U.S. based insurance subsidiaries. Our ownership of a U.S. insurance company can, under applicable state insurance company laws and regulations, delay or impede a change of control of RenaissanceRe. It is possible that we will form, acquire or invest in other U.S. domestic insurance companies in the future, which could make this risk more severe. Under applicable state insurance regulations, any proposed purchase of 10% or more of our voting securities would require the prior approval of the relevant insurance regulatory authorities.

In addition, similar provisions apply to our Lloyd’s managing agent, whereby the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority regulates the acquisition of control of any Lloyd’s managing agent which is authorized under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Any company or individual that, together with its or his associates, directly or indirectly acquires 10% or more of the shares in a Lloyd’s managing agent or its parent company, or is entitled to exercise or control the exercise of 10% or more of the voting power in such Lloyd’s managing agent or its parent company, would be considered to have acquired control for the purposes of the relevant legislation, as would a person who had significant influence over the management of such Lloyd’s managing agent or its parent company by virtue of his shareholding or voting power in either.

Investors may have difficulties in serving process or enforcing judgments against us in the U.S.

We are a Bermuda company. In addition, certain of our officers and directors reside in countries outside the U.S. All or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of these officers and directors are or may be located outside the U.S. Investors may have difficulty effecting service of process within the U.S. on our directors and officers who reside outside the U.S. or recovering against us or these directors and officers on judgments of U.S. courts based on civil liabilities provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws whether or not we appoint an agent in the U.S. to receive service of process.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDUSTRY

The reinsurance and insurance businesses are historically cyclical and the pricing and terms for our products may decline, which could affect our profitability.

The reinsurance and insurance industries have historically been cyclical, characterized by periods of decreasing prices followed by periods of increasing prices. Reinsurers have experienced significant fluctuations in their results of operations due to numerous factors, including the frequency and severity of catastrophic events, perceptions of risk, levels of capacity, general economic conditions and underwriting results of other insurers and reinsurers. All of these factors fluctuate and may contribute to price declines generally in the reinsurance and

22

Table of Contents

insurance industries. The January 1, 2010 and the June 1, 2010 renewal seasons were characterized by adverse pricing conditions which we expect to persist, perhaps throughout the remainder of 2010. There can be no assurance as to when, or the extent to which, pricing conditions may improve.

The catastrophe-exposed lines in which we are a market leader are affected significantly by volatile and unpredictable developments, including natural and man-made disasters. The occurrence, or nonoccurrence, of catastrophic events, the frequency and severity of which are inherently unpredictable, affects both industry results and consequently prevailing market prices of our products.

We expect premium rates and other terms and conditions of trade to vary in the future. If demand for our products falls or the supply of competing capacity rises, our prospects for potential growth, due in part to our disciplined approach to underwriting, may be adversely affected. In particular, we might lose existing customers or decline business, which we might not regain when industry conditions improve.

In recent years, hedge funds and investment banks have been increasingly active in the reinsurance market and markets for related risks. While this trend has slowed during the ongoing period of financial dislocation, we generally expect increased competition from a wider range of entrants over time. It is possible that such new or alternative capital could cause reductions in prices of our products. To the extent that industry pricing of our products does not meet our hurdle rate, we would generally expect to reduce our future underwriting activities thus resulting in reduced premiums and a reduction in expected earnings.

Other political, regulatory and industry initiatives could adversely affect our business.

The insurance and reinsurance regulatory framework is subject to heavy scrutiny by the U.S. and individual state governments as well as an increasing number of international authorities. Government regulators are generally concerned with the protection of policyholders to the exclusion of other constituencies, including shareholders. Governmental authorities in both the U.S. and worldwide seem increasingly interested in the potential risks posed by the reinsurance industry as a whole, and to commercial and financial systems in general. While we do not believe these inquiries have identified meaningful new risks posed by the reinsurance industry, and we cannot predict the exact nature, timing or scope of possible governmental initiatives, we believe it is likely there will be increased regulatory intervention in our industry in the future. For example, the U.S. federal government has increased its scrutiny of the insurance regulatory framework in recent years, and some state legislators have considered or enacted laws that will alter and likely increase state regulation of insurance and reinsurance companies and holding companies. Moreover, the NAIC, which is an association of the insurance commissioners of all 50 states and the District of Columbia and state insurance regulators, regularly reexamine existing laws and regulations.

For example, we could be adversely affected by proposals to:

23

Table of Contents

Our primary insurance business, which is regulated more comprehensively than reinsurance, increases our exposure to adverse political, judicial and legal developments.

We are incorporated in Bermuda and are therefore subject to changes in Bermuda law and regulation that may have an adverse impact on our operations, including imposition of tax liability or increased regulatory supervision or change in regulation. In addition, we are subject to changes in the political environment in Bermuda, which could make it difficult to operate in, or attract talent to, Bermuda. The Bermuda insurance and reinsurance regulatory framework recently has become subject to increased scrutiny in many jurisdictions, including in the U.S. and in various states within the U.S. We are unable to predict the future impact on our operations of changes in the laws and regulations to which we are or may become subject. Moreover, our exposure to potential regulatory initiatives could be heightened by the fact that our principal operating companies are domiciled in, and operate exclusively from, Bermuda. For example, Bermuda, a small jurisdiction, may be disadvantaged in participating in global or cross border regulatory matters as compared with larger jurisdictions such as the U.S. or the leading European Union countries. In addition, Bermuda, which is currently an overseas territory of the U.K., may consider changes to its relationship with the U.K. in the future. These changes could adversely affect Bermuda’s position in respect of its regulatory initiatives, which could adversely impact us commercially.

We operate in a highly competitive environment.

The reinsurance industry is highly competitive. We compete, and will continue to compete, with major U.S. and non-U.S. insurers and property catastrophe reinsurers, including other Bermuda-based reinsurers. Many of our competitors have greater financial, marketing and management resources than we do. Historically, periods of increased capacity levels in our industry generally have led to increased competition, and decreased prices for our products.

We believe that our principal competitors in the property catastrophe reinsurance market include other companies active in the Bermuda market, including Ace, Allied World, Alterra Capital, Arch, Axis, Endurance, Everest Re, Montpelier Re, Partner Re, Platinum, Transatlantic, Validus, White Mountains and XL, as well as a growing number of private, unrated reinsurers offering predominately collateralized reinsurance. We also compete with certain Lloyd’s syndicates active in the London market, as well as with a number of other industry participants, such as AIG, Berkshire, Hannover Re, Munich Re Group and Swiss Re. As our business evolves over time, we expect our competitors to change as well. For example, following hurricane Katrina in August 2005, a significant number of new reinsurance companies were formed in Bermuda which have resulted in new competition, which may well continue in subsequent periods. Also, hedge funds and investment banks have shown an interest in entering the reinsurance market, either through the formation of reinsurance companies, or through the use of other financial products, such as catastrophe bonds and other cat-linked securities. In addition, we may not be aware of other companies that may be planning to enter the reinsurance market or of existing companies that may be planning to raise additional capital. We cannot predict what effect any of these developments may have on our businesses.

The markets in which our Insurance unit operates are also highly competitive. Primary insurers compete on the basis of factors including distribution channels, product, price, service and financial strength. Many of our primary insurance competitors, especially in jurisdictions in which we have recently expanded, or may expand in the future, are larger and more established than we are and have greater financial resources and consumer recognition. We seek primary insurance pricing that will result in adequate returns on the capital allocated to our primary insurance business. We may lose primary insurance business to competitors offering competitive insurance products at lower prices or on more advantageous terms.

Consolidation in the (re)insurance industry could adversely impact us.

We believe that several (re)insurance industry participants are seeking to consolidate. These consolidated entities may try to use their enhanced market power to negotiate price reductions for our products and services. If

24

Table of Contents

competitive pressures reduce our prices, we would expect to write less business. As the insurance industry consolidates, competition for customers will become more intense and the importance of acquiring and properly servicing each customer will become greater. We could incur greater expenses relating to customer acquisition and retention, further reducing our operating margins. In addition, insurance companies that merge may be able to spread their risks across a consolidated, larger capital base so that they require less reinsurance. The number of companies offering retrocessional reinsurance may decline. Reinsurance intermediaries could also consolidate, potentially adversely impacting our ability to access business and distribute our products. We could also experience more robust competition from larger, better capitalized competitors. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our business or our results of operation.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) and the European Union are considering measures that might increase our taxes and reduce our net income.

The OECD has published reports and launched a global dialogue among member and non-member countries on measures to limit harmful tax competition. These measures are largely directed at counteracting the effects of jurisdictions perceived by the OECD to be tax havens or to offer preferential tax regimes. In the OECD’s report dated April 18, 2002 and updated as of June 2004 and November 2005 via a “Global Forum,” Bermuda was not listed as an uncooperative tax haven jurisdiction because it had previously committed to eliminate harmful tax practices and to embrace international tax standards for transparency, exchange of information and the elimination of any aspects of the regimes for financial and other services that attract business with no substantial domestic activity. In 2008, the OECD issued the final version of its “Report on the Attribution of Profits to Permanent Establishments,” which purported to represent a final report on the OECD’s project to establish a broad consensus regarding the interpretation and practical application of Article 7 of the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (“Article 7”). Article 7 sets forth international tax principles for attributing profits to a permanent establishment and forms the basis of an extensive network of bilateral income tax treaties between OECD member countries and between many OECD member and non-member countries. Part IV of the 2008 report addresses the attribution of profits to a permanent establishment of an enterprise that conducts insurance activities. The OECD has undertaken to issue a new version of Article 7 and related commentary to be used in the negotiation of new treaties and amendments to existing treaties. The final version of new Article 7 and related commentary might include provisions that could change the manner in which we are taxed. We are not able to precisely predict whether any of these developments will give rise to additional taxation or operational costs in respect of our activities.

Regulatory regimes and changes to accounting rules may adversely impact financial results irrespective of business operations.

Accounting standards and regulatory changes may require modifications to our accounting principles, both prospectively and for prior periods and such changes could have an adverse impact on our financial results. In particular, the Commission has formally proposed a plan to first allow and then require companies to file financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards rather than U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Such changes, if ultimately adopted, could have a significant impact on our financial reporting, impacting key matters such as our loss reserving policies and premium and expense recognition. For example, the International Accounting Standards Board is considering adopting an accounting standard that would require all reinsurance and insurance contracts to be accounted for under a new measurement basis, contract fulfillment value, which is considered to be more closely related to fair value than the current measurement basis, and would also require that deferred acquisition costs be derecognized and that future acquisition costs be expensed as incurred. We are currently evaluating how the Commission’s initiatives will impact us, including with respect to our loss reserving policy and the effect it might have on recognizing premium revenue and policy acquisition costs. Required modification of our existing principles, either with respect to these issues or other issues in the future, could have an impact on our results of operations, including changing the timing of the recognition of underwriting income, increasing the volatility of our reported earnings and changing our overall financial statement presentation.

25

Table of Contents

Heightened scrutiny of issues and practices in the insurance industry may adversely affect our business.

We believe that certain government authorities are continuing to scrutinize and investigate a number of issues and practices within the insurance industry. While we have not been named in any actions or proceedings, it is possible such scrutiny could expand to include us in the future, and it is also possible that these investigations or related regulatory developments will mandate or otherwise give rise to changes in industry practices in a fashion that increases our costs or requires us to alter how we conduct our business.

We cannot predict the ultimate effect that these investigations, and any changes in industry practice, including future legislation or regulations that may become applicable to us, will have on the insurance industry, the regulatory framework, or our business.

RISKS RELATED TO THE OFFERING

Any subordinated debt securities that we issue would rank below our existing and future senior debt.

Any subordinated debt securities that we issue would be unsecured and subordinated in right of payment to all of our existing and future senior debt. Because these subordinated debt securities would be subordinated to our senior debt, we would be unable to make any payments of principal, including redemption payments, or interest on the subordinated debt securities, in the event of payment default on senior debt obligations and may be prohibited in the event of some non-payment defaults. Moreover, in the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or reorganization, the acceleration of the debt underlying any of our subordinated debt securities due to an event of default, and certain other events, we would make payments on such subordinated debt securities only after we have satisfied all of our senior debt obligations. As of March 31, 2010, we had an aggregate of $349.1 million outstanding senior debt, to which any subordinated debt securities we might issue would be subordinated. See also the risk factor related to our debt agreement covenants above.

In addition, because we are a holding company, any subordinated debt securities we may offer would be effectively subordinated to all existing and future liabilities of our subsidiaries, including the liabilities of our insurance subsidiaries to their policy holders. The rights of our creditors (including the holders of any debt securities we might issue) to participate in distributions by certain of our subsidiaries, including our insurance subsidiaries, may also be subject to the approval of insurance regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over these subsidiaries. As of March 31, 2010, our subsidiaries had an aggregate of approximately $200 million of indebtedness outstanding, in addition to $249.1 million of outstanding senior debt that was issued by RRNAH and is guaranteed by RenaissanceRe and is therefore included in our outstanding senior debt. Unless we specify otherwise in a prospectus supplement, the subordinated indenture will not limit the amount of other indebtedness or liabilities that we or our subsidiaries may incur or securities that we or our subsidiaries may issue in the future.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain information included or incorporated by reference in this prospectus or the accompanying prospectus supplement contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements are necessarily based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which, with respect to future business decisions, are subject to change. These uncertainties and contingencies can affect actual results and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by, or on behalf of, us.

In particular, statements using words such as “may”, “should”, “estimate”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intends”, “believe”, “predict”, “potential”, or words of similar import generally involve forward-looking statements.

26

Table of Contents

In light of the risks and uncertainties inherent in all future projections, the inclusion of forward-looking statements in this report should not be considered as a representation by us or any other person that our objectives or plans will be achieved. Numerous factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those addressed by the forward-looking statements, including the following:

27

Table of Contents

28

Table of Contents

The factors listed above should not be construed as exhaustive. Certain of these factors are described in more detail in “Risk Factors” above. We undertake no obligation to release publicly the results of any future revisions we may make to forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

USE OF PROCEEDS

Unless the applicable prospectus supplement states otherwise, the net proceeds from the sale of securities offered by RenaissanceRe, RenaissanceRe Finance, RRNAH or the Capital Trust will be used by us and our subsidiaries for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions and other general corporate purposes. Until we use the net proceeds in this manner, we may temporarily use them to make short-term investments or reduce short-term borrowings.

DESCRIPTION OF OUR CAPITAL SHARES

The following is a summary of certain provisions of our Memorandum of Association and Bye-Laws. Because this summary is not complete, you should refer to our Memorandum and Bye-Laws for complete information regarding the provisions of the Memorandum and Bye-Laws, including the definitions of some of the terms used below. Copies of the Memorandum and Bye-Laws are incorporated by reference as exhibits to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part. Whenever we refer to particular sections or defined terms of the Memorandum and Bye-Laws, such sections or defined terms are incorporated herein by reference.

COMMON SHARES

Our common shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “RNR.” The common shares currently issued and outstanding are fully paid and nonassessable within the meaning of applicable Bermuda law. We have authorized the issuance of 225,000,000 common shares, and 57,903,912 shares were outstanding on April 26, 2010. Any common shares offered by a prospectus supplement, upon issuance against full consideration, will be fully paid and nonassessable within the meaning of applicable Bermuda law. There are no provisions of Bermuda law or our Memorandum or Bye-Laws which impose any limitation on the rights of shareholders to hold or vote common shares by reason of their not being residents of Bermuda.

29

Table of Contents

A more detailed description of our common shares is set forth in our registration statement filed under the Exchange Act on Form 8-A on July 24, 1995, including any amendment or report for the purpose of updating such description.

PREFERENCE SHARES

Our Bye-Laws divide our share capital into 225,000,000 common shares and 100,000,000 preference shares. Currently, 4,000,000 of our 7.30% Series B Preference Shares are outstanding, 10,000,000 of our 6.08% Series C Preference Shares are outstanding and 12,000,000 of our 6.60% Series D Preference Shares are outstanding. From time to time, pursuant to the authority granted by the Bye-Laws, our Board may create and issue one or more series of preference shares. The preference shares, upon issuance against full consideration, will be fully paid and nonassessable. The particular rights and preferences of the preference shares offered by any prospectus supplement and the extent, if any, to which the general provisions described below may apply to the offered preference shares, will be described in the prospectus supplement. Certain terms of the 7.30% Series B Preference Shares are summarized below under “Series B Preference Shares,” certain terms of the 6.08% Series C Preference Shares are summarized below under “Series C Preference Shares,” and certain terms of the 6.60% Series D Preference Shares are summarized below under “Series D Preference Shares.”

Because the following summary of the terms of preference shares is not complete, you should refer to the Memorandum, the Bye-Laws and any applicable Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights or other governing instrument for complete information regarding the terms of the class or series of preference shares described in a prospectus supplement. Whenever we refer to particular sections or defined terms of the Memorandum, the Bye-Laws and an applicable Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights or other governing instrument, such sections or defined terms are incorporated herein by reference.

A prospectus supplement will specify the terms of a particular class or series of preference shares as follows:

30

Table of Contents

Subject to the specification of the above terms of preference shares in a supplement to this prospectus, we anticipate that the terms of such preference shares will correspond to those set forth below.

DIVIDENDS

The holders of preference shares will be entitled to receive dividends, if any, at the rate established in accordance with the Bye-Laws, payable on specified dates each year for the respective dividend periods ending on such dates (“dividend periods”), when and as declared by our Board of Directors. Such dividends will accrue on each preference share from the first day of the dividend period in which such share is issued or from such other date as the Board may fix for such purpose. All dividends on preference shares will be cumulative. If we do not pay or set apart for payment the dividend, or any part thereof, on the issued and outstanding preference shares for any dividend period, the deficiency in the dividend on the preference shares must thereafter be fully paid or declared and set apart for payment (without interest) before any dividend may be paid or declared and set apart for payment on the common shares. The holders of preference shares will not be entitled to participate in any other or additional earnings or profits of ours, except for such premiums, if any, as may be payable in case of our liquidation, dissolution or winding up.

Any dividend paid upon the preference shares at a time when any accrued dividends for any prior dividend period are delinquent will be expressly declared to be in whole or partial payment of the accrued dividends to the extent thereof, beginning with the earliest dividend period for which dividends are then wholly or partly delinquent, and will be so designated to each shareholder to whom payment is made.

No dividends will be paid upon any shares of any class or series of preference shares for a current dividend period unless there will have been paid or declared and set apart for payment dividends required to be paid to the holders of each other class or series of preference shares for all past dividend periods of such other class or series. If any dividends are paid on any of the preference shares with respect to any past dividend period at any time when less than the total dividends then accumulated and payable for all past dividend periods on all of the preference shares then outstanding are to be paid or declared and set apart for payment, then the dividends being paid will be paid on each class or series of preference shares in the proportions that the dividends then accumulated and payable on each class or series for all past dividend periods bear to the total dividends then accumulated and payable for all past dividend periods on all outstanding preference shares.

LIQUIDATION, DISSOLUTION OR WINDING UP

In case of our voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding up, the holders of each class or series of preference shares will be entitled to receive out of our assets in money or money’s worth the liquidation preference with respect to that class or series of preference shares. These holders will also receive an amount equal to all accrued but unpaid dividends thereon (whether or not earned or declared), before any of our assets will be paid or distributed to holders of common shares.

It is possible that, in case of our voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding up, our assets could be insufficient to pay the holders of all of the classes or series of preference shares then outstanding the full, or any, amounts to which they may be entitled. In that circumstance, the holders of each outstanding class or series of preference shares will share ratably in such assets in proportion to the amounts which would be payable with respect to such class or series if all amounts payable thereon were paid in full.

Our amalgamation, consolidation or merger with or into any other corporation, or a sale of all or any part of our assets, will not be deemed to constitute a liquidation, dissolution or winding up.

REDEMPTION

Except as otherwise provided with respect to a particular class or series of preference shares, the following general redemption provisions will apply to each class or series of preference shares.

31

Table of Contents

On or prior to the date fixed for redemption of a particular class or series of preference shares or any part thereof as specified in the notice of redemption for such class or series, we will deposit adequate funds for such redemption, in trust for the account of holders of such class or series, with a bank or trust company that has an office in the U.S., and that has, or is an affiliate of a bank or trust company that has, capital and surplus of at least $50,000,000. If the name and address of such bank or trust company and the deposit of or intent to deposit the redemption funds in such trust account have been stated in the redemption notice, then from and after the mailing of the notice and the making of such deposit the shares of the class or series called for redemption will no longer be deemed to be outstanding for any purpose whatsoever, and all rights of the holders of such shares in or with respect to us will cease and terminate, except for the right of the holders of the shares:

Any moneys so deposited by us which remain unclaimed by the holders of the shares called for redemption and not converted will, at the end of six years after the redemption date, be paid to us upon our request, after which repayment the holders of the shares called for redemption can no longer look to such bank or trust company for the payment of the redemption price but must look only to us for the payment of any lawful claim for such moneys which holders of such shares may still have. After such six-year period, the right of any shareholder or other person to receive such payment may lapse through limitations imposed in the manner and with the effect provided under the law of Bermuda. Any portion of the moneys so deposited by us, in respect of preference shares called for redemption that are converted into common shares, will be repaid to us upon our request.

In case of redemption of only a part of a class or series of preference shares, we will designate by lot, in such manner as the Board may determine, the shares to be redeemed, or will effect such redemption pro rata.

CONVERSION RIGHTS

Except as otherwise provided with respect to a particular class or series of preference shares and subject in each case to applicable Bermuda law, the following general conversion provisions will apply to each class or series of preference shares that is convertible into common shares.

All common shares issued upon conversion will be fully paid and nonassessable, and will be free of all taxes, liens and charges with respect to the issue thereof except taxes, if any, payable by reason of issuance in a name other than that of the holder of the shares converted and except as otherwise provided by applicable law or the Bye-Laws.

The number of common shares issuable upon conversion of a particular class or series of preference shares at any time will be the quotient obtained by dividing the aggregate conversion value of the shares of such class or series surrendered for conversion, by the conversion price per share of common shares then in effect for such class or series. We will not be required, however, upon any such conversion, to issue any fractional share of common shares, but instead we will pay to the holder who would otherwise be entitled to receive such fractional share if issued, a sum in cash equal to the value of such fractional share based on the last reported sale price per common share on the New York Stock Exchange at the date of determination. Preference shares will be deemed to have been converted as of the close of business on the date of receipt at the office of the transfer agent of the certificates, duly endorsed, together with written notice by the holder of his election to convert the shares.

32

Table of Contents

Except as otherwise provided with respect to a particular class or series of preference shares and subject in each case to applicable Bermuda law, the Memorandum and the Bye-Laws the basic conversion price per ordinary share for a class or series of preference shares, as fixed by the Board, will be subject to adjustment from time to time as follows:

For the purpose of any computation under the last clause above, the current market price per common share on any date will be deemed to be the average of the high and low sales prices of the common shares, as reported in the New York Stock Exchange – Composite Transactions (or such other principal market quotation as may then be applicable to the common shares) for each of the 30 consecutive trading days commencing 45 trading days before such date.

33

Table of Contents

No adjustment will be made in the basic conversion price for any class or series of preference shares in effect immediately prior to such computation if the amount of such adjustment would be less than fifty cents. However, any adjustments which by reason of the preceding sentence are not required to be made will be carried forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, any adjustment required for purposes of making the computations described above will be made not later than the earlier of (1) three years after the effective date described above for such adjustment or (2) the date as of which such adjustment would result in an increase or decrease of at least 3% in the aggregate number of common shares issued and outstanding on the first date on which an event occurred which required the making of a computation described above. All calculations will be made to the nearest cent or to the nearest 1/100th of a share, as the case may be.

In the case of any capital reorganization or reclassification of common shares, or if we amalgamate or consolidate with or merge into, or sell or dispose of all or substantially all of our property and assets to, any other corporation, proper provisions will be made as part of the terms of such capital reorganization, reclassification, amalgamation, consolidation, merger or sale that any shares of a particular class or series of preference shares at the time outstanding will thereafter be convertible into the number of shares of stock or other securities or property to which a holder of the number of common shares deliverable upon conversion of such preference shares would have been entitled upon such capital reorganization, reclassification, consolidation or merger.

No dividend adjustment with respect to any preference shares or common shares will be made in connection with any conversion.

Whenever there is an issue of additional common shares requiring a change in the conversion price as provided above, and whenever there occurs any other event which results in a change in the existing conversion rights of the holders of shares of a class or series of preference shares, we will file with our transfer agent or agents, a statement signed by one of our executive officers, describing specifically such issue of additional common shares or such other event (and, in the case of a capital reorganization, reclassification, amalgamation, consolidation or merger, the terms thereof) and the actual conversion prices or basis of conversion as changed by such issue or event and the change, if any, in the securities issuable upon conversion. Whenever we issue to all holders of common shares as a class any rights or warrants enabling them to subscribe for or purchase common shares, we will also file in like manner a statement describing the same and the consideration they will receive. The statement so filed will be open to inspection by any holder of record of shares of any class or series of preference shares.

We will at all times have authorized and will at all times reserve and set aside a sufficient number of duly authorized common shares for the conversion of all shares of all then outstanding classes or series of preference shares which are convertible into common shares.

REISSUANCE OF SHARES

Any preference shares retired by purchase, redemption, through conversion, or through the operation of any sinking fund or redemption or purchase account, will have the status of authorized but unissued preference shares, and may be reissued as part of the same class or series or may be reclassified and reissued by the Board in the same manner as any other authorized and unissued preference shares.

VOTING RIGHTS

Except as indicated below or as otherwise required by applicable law, the holders of preference shares will have no voting rights.

Whenever dividends payable on any class or series of preference shares are in arrears in an aggregate amount equivalent to six full quarterly dividends on all of the preference shares of that class or series then outstanding, the holders of preference shares of that class or series, together with the holders of each other class

34

Table of Contents

or series of preference shares ranking on a parity with respect to the payment of dividends and amounts upon our liquidation, dissolution or winding up, will have the right, voting together as a single class regardless of class or series, to elect two directors of our Board. We will use our best efforts to increase the number of directors constituting the Board to the extent necessary to effectuate such right.

Whenever such special voting power of such holders of the preference shares has vested, such right may be exercised initially either at an extraordinary meeting of the holders of preference shares, or at any annual general meeting of shareholders, and thereafter at annual general meetings of shareholders. The right of such holders of preference shares to elect members of the Board will continue until such time as all dividends accumulated on such preference shares have been paid in full, at which time that special right will terminate, subject to revesting in the event of each and every subsequent default in an aggregate amount equivalent to six full quarterly dividends.

At any time when such special voting power has vested in the holders of any such preference shares as described in the preceding paragraph, our President will, upon the written request of the holders of record of at least 10% of such preference shares then outstanding addressed to our Secretary, call a special general meeting of the holders of such preference shares for the purpose of electing directors. Such meeting will be held at the earliest practicable date in such place as may be designated pursuant to the Bye-Laws (or if there be no designation, at our principal office in Bermuda). If such meeting shall not be called by our proper officers within 20 days after our Secretary has been personally served with such request, or within 60 days after mailing the same by registered or certified mail addressed to our Secretary at our principal office, then the holders of record of at least 10% of such preference shares then outstanding may designate in writing one of their number to call such meeting at our expense, and such meeting may be called by such person so designated upon the notice required for annual general meetings of shareholders and will be held in Bermuda, unless we otherwise designate.

Any holder of such preference shares so designated will have access to our register of members for the purpose of causing meetings of shareholders to be called pursuant to these provisions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no such extraordinary meeting will be called during the period within 90 days immediately preceding the date fixed for the next annual general meeting of shareholders.

At any annual or extraordinary meeting at which the holders of such preference shares have the special right, voting separately as a class, to elect directors as described above, the presence, in person or by proxy, of the holders of 50% of such preference shares will be required to constitute a quorum of such preference shares for the election of any director by the holders of such preference shares, voting as a class. At any such meeting or adjournment thereof the absence of a quorum of such preference shares will not prevent the election of directors other than those to be elected by such preference shares, voting as a class, and the absence of a quorum for the election of such other directors will not prevent the election of the directors to be elected by such preference shares, voting as a class.

During any period in which the holders of such preference shares have the right to vote as a class for directors as described above, any vacancies in the Board will be filled by vote of a majority of the Board pursuant to the Bye-Laws. During such period the directors so elected by the holders of such preference shares will continue in office (1) until the next succeeding annual general meeting of shareholders or until their successors, if any, are elected by such holders and qualify or (2) unless required by applicable law to continue in office for a longer period, until termination of the right of the holders of such preference shares to vote as a class for directors, if earlier. If and to the extent permitted by applicable law, immediately upon any termination of the right of the holders of such preference shares to vote as a class for directors as provided herein, the term of office of the directors then in office so elected by the holders of such preference shares will terminate.

Whether or not we are being wound up, the rights attached to any class or series of preference shares may only be varied with the consent in writing of the holders of three-quarters of the issued shares of that class or series, or with the sanction of a special resolution approved by at least a majority of the votes cast by the holders of the shares of that class or series at a separate general meeting in accordance with Section 47(7) of the

35

Table of Contents

Companies Act 1981 of Bermuda. The rights attached to any class or series of preference shares will not be deemed to be varied by the creation or issue of any shares or any securities convertible into or evidencing the right to purchase shares ranking prior to or equally with such class or series of the preference shares with respect to the payment of dividends or of assets upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up. Holders of preference shares are not entitled to vote on any amalgamation, consolidation, merger or statutory share exchange, except to the extent that such a transaction would vary the rights attached to any class or series of preference shares, in which case any such variation is subject to the approval process described above. Holders of preference shares are not entitled to vote on any sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

On any item on which the holders of the preference shares are entitled to vote, such holders will be entitled to one vote for each preference share held.

RESTRICTIONS IN EVENT OF DEFAULT IN DIVIDENDS ON PREFERENCE SHARES

Unless we provide otherwise in a prospectus supplement, if at any time we have failed to pay dividends in full on the preference shares, thereafter and until dividends in full, including all accrued and unpaid dividends for all past quarterly dividend periods on the preference shares outstanding, shall have been declared and set apart in trust for payment or paid, or if at any time we have failed to pay in full amounts payable with respect to any obligations to retire preference shares, thereafter and until such amounts shall have been paid in full or set apart in trust for payment:

PREEMPTIVE RIGHTS

No holder of preference shares, solely by reason of such holding, has or will have any preemptive right to subscribe to any additional issue of shares of any class or series or to any security convertible into such shares.

SERIES B PREFERENCE SHARES

Currently, 4,000,000 of our 7.30% Series B Preference Shares are outstanding. Certain terms of the Series B Preference Shares are summarized below. A more detailed description of the Series B Preference Shares is set forth in our registration statement filed under the Exchange Act on Form 8-A on February 3, 2003, including any amendment or report for the purpose of updating such description. If we issue preference shares in the future, they may, or may not, be on terms similar to the Series B Preference Shares.

36

Table of Contents

Dividends on the Series B Preference Shares are cumulative from the date of original issuance and are payable when, as and if declared by our Board of Directors, quarterly in arrears, in an amount per share equal to 7.30% of the liquidation preference per annum. The Series B Preference Shares rank pari passu to our Series C Preference Shares and our Series D Preference Shares and senior to our common shares with respect to payment of dividends and amounts upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up. Upon liquidation, the holders of the Series B Preference Shares will be entitled to receive from our assets legally available for distribution to shareholders a liquidation preference of $25 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of liquidation.

We may redeem the Series B Preference Shares, in whole or in part, at any time, at a redemption price of $25 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of redemption, without interest. The Series B Preference Shares have no stated maturity, are not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and are not convertible into or exchangeable for any of our other securities.

SERIES C PREFERENCE SHARES

Currently, 10,000,000 of our 6.08% Series C Preference Shares are outstanding. Certain terms of the Series C Preference Shares are summarized below. A more detailed description of the Series C Preference Shares is set forth in our registration statement filed under the Exchange Act on Form 8-A on March 19, 2004, including any amendment or report for the purpose of updating such description. If we issue preference shares in the future, they may, or may not, be on terms similar to the Series C Preference Shares.

Dividends on the Series C Preference Shares are cumulative from the date of original issuance and are payable when, as and if declared by our Board of Directors, quarterly in arrears, in an amount per share equal to 6.08% of the liquidation preference per annum. The Series C Preference Shares rank pari passu to our Series B Preference Shares and our Series D Preference Shares and senior to our common shares with respect to payment of dividends and amounts upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up. Upon liquidation, the holders of the Series C Preference Shares will be entitled to receive from our assets legally available for distribution to shareholders a liquidation preference of $25 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of liquidation.

We may redeem the Series C Preference Shares, in whole or in part, at any time, at a redemption price of $25 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of redemption, without interest. The Series C Preference Shares have no stated maturity, are not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and are not convertible into or exchangeable for any of our other securities.

SERIES D PREFERENCE SHARES

Currently, 12,000,000 of our 6.60% Series D Preference Shares are outstanding. Certain terms of the Series D Preference Shares are summarized below. A more detailed description of the Series D Preference Shares is set forth in our registration statement filed under the Exchange Act on Form 8-A on December 14, 2006, including any amendment or report for the purpose of updating such description. If we issue preference shares in the future, they may, or may not, be on terms similar to the Series D Preference Shares.

Dividends on the Series D Preference Shares are cumulative from the date of original issuance and are payable when, as and if declared by our Board of Directors, quarterly in arrears, in an amount per share equal to 6.60% of the liquidation preference per annum. The Series D Preference Shares rank pari passu to our Series B Preference Shares and our Series C Preference Shares and senior to our common shares with respect to payment of dividends and amounts upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up. Upon liquidation, the holders of the Series D Preference Shares will be entitled to receive from our assets legally available for distribution to shareholders a liquidation preference of $25 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of liquidation.

On or after December 1, 2011, we may redeem the Series D Preference Shares, in whole or in part, at any time, at a redemption price of $25 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of redemption, without interest. At any time prior to December 1, 2011, if we submit to the holders of our common shares a

37

Table of Contents

proposal for an amalgamation or submit any proposal for any other matter that requires, as a result of any changes in Bermuda law after December 12, 2006, for its validation or effectuation an affirmative vote of the holders of preference shares at the time outstanding, voting separately, we have the option to redeem all of the outstanding Series D Preference Shares at a redemption price of $26 per share, plus accrued and unpaid dividends, if any, to the date of redemption, without interest. The Series D Preference Shares have no stated maturity, are not subject to any sinking fund or mandatory redemption and are not convertible into or exchangeable for any of our other securities.

TRANSFER AGENT

Our registrar and transfer agent for each of our common shares, Series B Preference Shares, Series C Preference Shares and Series D Preference Shares is Mellon Investor Services, L.L.C.

TRANSFER OF SHARES

Our Bye-Laws contain various provisions affecting the transferability of our shares. Under the Bye-Laws, the Board has absolute discretion to decline to register a transfer of shares:

The primary purpose for the restriction on a holder of our shares from owning or exercising more than 9.9% of the total voting rights of all our shareholders is to reduce the likelihood that we will be deemed a “controlled foreign corporation” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code for U.S. Federal tax purposes. This limit may also have the effect of deterring purchases of large blocks of common shares or proposals to acquire us, even if some or a majority of the shareholders might deem these purchases or acquisition proposals to be in their best interests. With respect to this issue, also see the provisions discussed below under “Anti-Takeover Effects of Certain Bye-Law Provisions.”

If the Board refuses to register any transfer of shares, our Secretary shall send notice of such refusal to the transferor and transferee within 10 days of the date on which the transfer was lodged with us.

Our Bermuda counsel has advised us that while the precise form of the restrictions on transfers contained in the Bye-Laws is untested, as a matter of general principle, restrictions on transfers are enforceable under Bermuda law and are not uncommon. The transferor of such shares will be deemed to own such shares for dividend, voting and reporting purposes until a transfer of such shares has been registered on our register of members, if at all.

ANTI-TAKEOVER EFFECTS OF CERTAIN BYE-LAW PROVISIONS

Our Bye-Laws contain certain provisions that make it more difficult to acquire control of us by means of a tender offer, open market purchase, a proxy fight or otherwise. These provisions are designed to encourage persons seeking to acquire control of us to negotiate with our directors. We believe that, as a general rule, the interests of our shareholders would be best served if any change in control results from negotiations with our directors. These provisions could have the effect of discouraging a prospective acquiror from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us. In addition, these Bye-Law provisions could prevent the removal of our current board of directors and management.

38

Table of Contents

In addition to those provisions of the Bye-Laws discussed above under “Transfers of Shares,” set forth below is a description of certain other provisions of the Bye-Laws. Because the following description is intended as a summary only and is therefore not complete, you should refer to the Bye-Laws, which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part, for complete information regarding these provisions.

BOARD OF DIRECTOR PROVISIONS

Our Bye-Laws provide for a classified board, to which approximately one-third of the Board is elected each year at our annual general meeting of shareholders. Accordingly, our directors serve three-year terms rather than one-year terms. Moreover, our Bye-Laws provide that each director may be removed by the shareholders only for cause upon the affirmative vote of the holders of not less than 66  ² / 3 % of the voting rights attached to all issued and outstanding capital shares entitled to vote for the election of that director. Further, our Bye-Laws fix the size of the Board at eight directors (although the incumbent Board may increase its size to eleven members). In addition, shareholders may only nominate persons for election as director at an annual or special general meeting of shareholders called for the purpose of electing directors and only if, among other things, a satisfactory written notice signed by not less than 20 shareholders holding in the aggregate not less than 10% of our outstanding paid up share capital is timely submitted.

We believe that these Bye-Law provisions enhance the likelihood of continuity and stability in the composition of the Board and in the policies formulated by the Board. We believe these provisions assist our Board to represent more effectively the interests of all shareholders, including taking action in response to demands or actions by a minority shareholder or group.

Our classified Board makes it more difficult for shareholders to change the composition of our Board even if some or a majority of the shareholders believe such a change would be desirable. Moreover, these Bye-Law provisions may deter changes in the composition of the Board or certain mergers, tender offers or other future takeover attempts which some or a majority of holders of our securities may deem to be in their best interest.

RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN SHAREHOLDER ACTIONS

Our Bye-Laws restrict the ability of our shareholders to take certain actions. These restrictions, among other things, limit the power of our shareholders to:

Generally, the Bye-Laws prohibit shareholders from taking these actions unless certain requirements specified in the Bye-Laws are met. These requirements include the giving of written notice, specifying information that must be provided in connection with the notice or in relation to the requested action, taking of specified actions within specified time periods, and requiring a minimum number of holders to act.

These requirements regulating shareholder nominations and proposals may have the effect of deterring a contest for the election of directors or the introduction of a shareholder proposal if the procedures summarized above are not followed. They may also discourage or deter a third party from conducting a solicitation of proxies to elect its own slate of directors or to introduce a proposal. For a more complete description of these provisions, you should refer to the Bye-Laws, which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part.

39

Table of Contents

SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AMENDMENTS

Our Bye-Laws require the affirmative vote of at least 66  ² / 3 % of the voting rights attached to all of our issued and outstanding capital shares to amend, repeal or adopt any provision inconsistent with several provisions of the Bye-Laws. The provisions include, among others things, those relating to: the size of our Board and its division into classes, the removal of directors, the powers of shareholders to nominate directors, to call shareholder meetings and to propose matters to be acted on at shareholder meetings. This supermajority requirement could make it more difficult for shareholders to propose and adopt changes to the Bye-Laws intended to facilitate the acquisition or exercise of control over us.

AVAILABILITY OF SHARES FOR FUTURE ISSUANCES; SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLAN

We have available for issuance a large number of authorized but unissued shares. Generally, these shares may be issued by action of our directors without further action by shareholders (except as may be required by applicable stock exchange requirements). The availability of these shares for issue could be viewed as enabling the directors to make more difficult a change in our control. For example, the directors could determine to issue warrants or rights to acquire shares. In addition, we have authorized a sufficient amount of our shares such that we could put in place a shareholder rights plan without further action by shareholders. A shareholder rights plan could serve to dilute or deter stock ownership of persons seeking to obtain control of us.

Our ability to take these actions makes it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without negotiating with the Board, even if some or a majority of the shareholders desired to pursue a proposed transaction. Moreover, these powers could discourage or defeat unsolicited stock accumulation programs and acquisition proposals.