Overview
We are a Cayman Islands exempted company that was organized in April 2013 to provide reinsurance business solutions primarily to property and casualty insurers in the Gulf Coast region of the United States. Through our licensed reinsurance subsidiary, Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited, we write fully collateralized policies to cover property losses from specified catastrophes.
We specialize in underwriting medium frequency, high severity risks, where we believe sufficient data exists to analyze effectively the risk/return profile of reinsurance contracts.
Our company was formed by investors with significant experience in the U.S. property and casualty insurance market who saw an opportunity to provide more competitive reinsurance products to property and casualty insurance providers in the Gulf Coast region. Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited was approved by the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority as a licensed Class C insurance
company under Cayman Islands law in April 2013. In June 2013, we completed a private placement in the amount of $6.7 million and in April 2014, we completed our initial public offering, raising approximately $26.9 million. Our core business is focused on the provision of property catastrophe reinsurance coverage to a broad range of select insurance companies and other reinsurers. We entered into our initial reinsurance contracts with Claddaugh Casualty Insurance Company, Ltd. (“Claddaugh”), a captive
reinsurance company and a subsidiary of HCI Group, a Florida-based, publicly traded holding company (“HCI Group”), following our private placement in June 2013. We have since entered into additional reinsurance contracts with a number of third-party insurers and reinsurers.
We underwrite reinsurance contracts on a selective and opportunistic basis as opportunities arise based on our goal of achieving favorable long-term returns on equity for our shareholders. Our goal is to achieve long-term growth in book value per share by writing business that generates attractive underwriting profits relative to the risk we bear.
Unlike other insurance and reinsurance companies, we do not intend to pursue an aggressive investment strategy and instead will focus our business on underwriting profits rather than investment profits. However, we intend to complement our underwriting profits with investment profits on an opportunistic basis. Our primary business focus is on fully collateralized reinsurance contracts for property catastrophes, primarily in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, with an emphasis on Florida. Within that market
and risk category, we attempt to select the most economically attractive opportunities across a variety of property and casualty insurers. As our capital base grows, however, we expect that we will consider further growth opportunities in other geographic areas and risk categories.
Our Business Strategy
Our goal is to achieve attractive risk-adjusted returns for our shareholders through the prudent management of underwriting risks relative to our capital base. To achieve this objective, the following are the principal elements of our business strategy.
●
Maintain a Commitment to Disciplined Underwriting.
We employ a disciplined and data-driven underwriting approach to select a diversified portfolio of risks that we believe will generate an attractive return to our shareholders over the long term. Neither our underwriting nor our investment strategies are designed to generate smooth or predictable
quarterly earnings, but rather to optimize growth in book value per share over the long term.
●
Focus on Risk Management.
We treat risk management as an integral part of our underwriting and business management processes. All of our reinsurance contracts contain loss limitation provisions that limit our losses to the value of the assets collateralizing our reinsurance contracts.
●
Partial Deployment of Capital.
In order to eliminate the possibility of complete losses, we intend to place only a portion of our total capital at risk in any single year. This means that we expect lower returns than some of our competitors in years
where there are lower than average catastrophe losses but that our capital will be better protected in the event of large losses. We are committed to maintaining our capitalization and financial strength over the long term and to developing a history of paying a consistent dividend on our ordinary shares.
●
Take Advantage of Market Opportunities.
Although our business is initially focused on catastrophe coverage for Gulf Coast insurers with an emphasis on Florida, we intend to continuously evaluate various market opportunities in which our business may be strategically or financially expanded or enhanced in the future. Such opportunities could take
the form of further diversifying our business into other geographic or market areas, could include quota share reinsurance contracts, joint ventures, renewal rights transactions, corporate acquisitions of other insurers or reinsurers, or the formation of insurance or reinsurance platforms in new markets. We believe the environment in the reinsurance and insurance markets will continue to produce opportunities for us, either through organic expansion, through acquisitions, or a combination of both.
The Reinsurance Industry
General
Reinsurance is an arrangement in which an insurance company, referred to as the reinsurer, agrees to assume from another insurance company, referred to as the ceding company or cedant, all or a portion of the insurance risks that the ceding company has underwritten under one or more insurance contracts. In return, the reinsurer
receives a premium for the insured risks that it assumes from the ceding company, although reinsurance does not discharge the ceding company from its liabilities to policyholders. It is standard industry practice for primary insurers to reinsure portions of their insurance risks with other insurance companies under reinsurance agreements or contracts. This permits primary insurers to underwrite policies in amounts larger than the risks they are willing to retain. Reinsurance is generally designed to:
●
Reduce the ceding company’s net liability on individual risks, thereby assisting it in managing its risk profile and increasing its capacity to underwrite business as well as increasing the limit to which it can underwrite on a single risk;
●
assist the ceding company in meeting applicable regulatory and rating agency capital requirements;
●
assist the ceding company in reducing the short-term financial impact of sales and other acquisition costs; and
●
enhance the ceding company’s financial strength and statutory capital.
When reinsurance companies purchase reinsurance to cover their own risks assumed from ceding companies, this is known as retrocessional reinsurance. Reinsurance or retrocessional reinsurance can benefit a ceding company or reinsuring company, referred to herein as a “retrocedant,” as applicable, in various
ways, such as by reducing exposure to individual risks and by providing catastrophe protection from larger or multiple losses. Like ceding companies, retrocedants can use retrocessional reinsurance to manage their overall risk profile or to create additional underwriting capacity, allowing them to accept larger risks or to write more business than would otherwise be possible, absent an increase in their capital or surplus
.
Reinsurance contracts do not discharge ceding companies from their obligations to policyholders. Ceding companies therefore generally require their reinsurers to have, and to maintain, either a strong financial strength rating or security, in the form of collateral, as assurance that their claims will be paid.
Insurers generally purchase multiple tranches of reinsurance protection above an initial retention elected by the insurer. The amount of reinsurance protection purchased by an insurer is typically determined by the insurer through both quantitative and qualitative methods. In the event of losses, the amount of loss that exceeds the amount of reinsurance protection purchased
is retained by the insurer. As a program is constructed from the ground up, each tranche added generally has a lower probability of loss than the prior tranche and therefore is generally subject to a lower reinsurance premium charged for the reinsurance protection purchased. Insurer catastrophe programs are typically supported by multiple reinsurers per program.
Reinsurance brokers play an important role in the reinsurance market. Brokers are intermediaries that assist the ceding company in structuring a particular reinsurance program and in negotiating and placing risks with third-party reinsurers. In this capacity, the broker is selected and retained by the ceding company on a contract-by-contract basis, rather than by the reinsurer.
Though brokers are not parties to reinsurance contracts, reinsurers generally receive premium payments from brokers rather than ceding companies, and reinsurers that do not provide collateralized reinsurance are frequently required to pay amounts owed on claims under their policies to brokers. These brokers, in turn, pay these amounts to the ceding companies that have reinsured a portion of their liabilities with reinsurers.
Types of Reinsurance Contracts
Property reinsurance products are often written in the form of treaty reinsurance contracts, which are contractual arrangements that provide for the automatic reinsurance of a type or category of risk underwritten. Treaty reinsurance premiums, which are typically due in installments, are a function of the number and type of contracts written, as well as prevailing market
prices. The timing of premiums written varies by line of business. The majority of property catastrophe business is written at the January and June annual renewal periods, depending on the type and location of the risks covered. Most hurricane and wind-storm coverage, particularly in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, is written at the June annual renewal periods.
Property catastrophe reinsurance contracts are typically “all risk” in nature, providing protection to the ceding company against losses from hurricanes and other natural and man-made catastrophes such as floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, storms and fires, referred to herein collectively as “perils.” The predominant exposures covered by these contracts
are losses stemming from property damage and business interruption resulting from a covered peril. Coverage can also vary from “all natural” perils, which is the most expansive form, to more limited types such as windstorm-only coverage.
Property catastrophe reinsurance contracts are typically written on an “excess-of-loss” basis, which provides coverage to the ceding company when aggregate claims and claim expenses from a single occurrence for a covered peril exceed an amount that is specified in a particular contract. The coverage provided under excess-of-loss reinsurance contracts may be on
a worldwide basis or may be limited in scope to specific regions or geographical areas. Under these contracts, protection is provided to an insurer for a portion of the total losses in excess of a specified loss amount, up to a maximum amount per loss specified in the contract.
Excess-of-loss contracts are typically written on a losses-occurring basis, which means that they cover losses that occur during the contract term, regardless of when the underlying policies came into force. Premiums from excess-of-loss contracts are earned ratably over the contract term, which is ordinarily 12 months. Most excess-of-loss contracts provide for a reinstatement
of coverage following a covered loss event in return for an additional premium.
The Florida Property and Casualty Insurance Market
General Overview
Florida’s property and casualty insurance market has undergone significant changes in the past few decades. This market, which was formerly dominated by large, national, multi-line insurance companies, now includes: (i) Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”), a state-sponsored insurance company created by the Florida Legislature; (ii) Florida-based
insurance companies that focus primarily on writing property insurance policies in the state of Florida; and (iii) Florida-based subsidiaries of national insurance companies that focus on writing property insurance policies in the state of Florida. While these three types of insurance companies participate in the market at varying levels, Citizens and the Florida-based insurance companies are now the dominant market participants. Within the private market, which excludes Citizens, there is an emerging prominence
of small insurance companies, which have limited capitalization and a limited ability to diversify.
According to The State of Florida’s Property Insurance Market 2nd Annual Report Released in January 2013 for the Florida Legislature by The Florida Catastrophic Storm Risk Management Center (the “Report”), the shift from a market dominated by large, national, multi-line insurance companies to a market dominated by Citizens and the smaller, Florida-based
insurance companies has resulted in an increased reliance on the global reinsurance market for diversification and capital. For the smaller, Florida-based insurance companies, reinsurance companies serve as the primary means of accessing broader capital markets.
Catastrophic Events
While the Florida property and casualty insurance market faces various challenges, the primary challenge is the potential for exposure to catastrophic windstorms. According to the Report, the state of Florida has:
●
more than $1.8 trillion in insured residential property exposure;
●
more than $4 billion in expected average annual losses due to windstorms (with respect to residential and commercial residential properties only); and
●
nearly $60 billion in 1-in-100 probable maximum losses due to windstorms (with respect to residential and commercial residential properties only).
According to Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6, entitled “The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 1851 to 2010 (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts)” (the “NOAA Memorandum”) published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the “NOAA”), “[f]orty percent of all U.S. hurricanes
and major hurricanes were in Florida,” and “[s]ixty percent of category 4 or higher hurricane strikes have occurred in either Florida or Texas.” The NOAA Memorandum also indicates that, between 1851 and 2010, there were 114 hurricane strikes and 37 major hurricanes in Florida. For these purposes, a “major hurricane” is a category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane.
For information regarding risks faced by our company due to weather-related incidents, see the risk factor on page [18] entitled “
Our property and property catastrophe reinsurance operations will make us vulnerable to losses from catastrophes and may cause our results of operations to vary significantly from period to period
.”
Our Reinsurance Contracts and Products
We write primarily property, property catastrophe, and short-tail specialty and casualty reinsurance. We currently expect that substantially all of the reinsurance products we write in the foreseeable future will be in the form of treaty reinsurance contracts. When we write treaty reinsurance contracts, we do not evaluate separately each of the individual risks assumed under
the contracts and are therefore largely dependent on the individual underwriting decisions made by the cedant. Accordingly, as part of our initial review and renewal process, we carefully review and analyze the cedant’s risk management and underwriting practices in evaluating whether to provide treaty reinsurance and in appropriately pricing the treaty.
Our contracts are written on an excess-of-loss basis, generally with a per-event cap. We generally receive the premium for the risk assumed and indemnify the cedant against all or a specified portion of losses and expenses in excess of a specified dollar or percentage amount. Our contracts are generally both single-year or multi-year contracts and our policy years generally
commence on June 1 of each year and end on May 31 of the following year.
The bulk of our portfolio of risks is assumed pursuant to traditional reinsurance contracts. However, we may also from time to time take underwriting risk by purchasing a catastrophe-linked bond, or via a transaction booked as an industry loss warranty (as described below) or an indemnity swap. An indemnity swap is an agreement which provides for the exchange between two
parties of different portfolios of catastrophe exposure with similar expected loss characteristics (for example, U.S. earthquake exposure for Asian earthquake exposure).
We believe our most attractive near-term opportunity is in property catastrophe reinsurance coverage for insurance companies. In addition to seeking profitable pricing, we manage our risks with contractual limits on our exposure. Property catastrophe reinsurance contracts are typically “all risk” in nature, meaning that they protect against losses from earthquakes
and hurricanes, as well as other natural and man-made catastrophes such as tornados, fires, winter storms, and floods (where the contract specifically provides for such coverage). Losses on these contracts typically stem from direct property damage and business interruption. We generally write property catastrophe reinsurance on an excess-of-loss basis. These contracts typically cover only specific regions or geographical areas.
We are not licensed or admitted as an insurer in any jurisdiction other than the Cayman Islands. In addition, we do not have a financial rating and do not expect to have one in the near future. Many jurisdictions such as the United States do not permit clients to take credit for reinsurance on their statutory financial statements if such reinsurance is obtained from unlicensed
or non-admitted insurers without appropriate collateral. As a result, we anticipate that all of our clients will require us to fully collateralize the reinsurance contracts we bind with them. Each of our contracts are fully collateralized and separately structured, with our liability being limited to the value of the assets held in the trust. We are generally not required to top-up the value of the assets held as collateral in respect of a particular reinsurance agreement, unless such collateral is subject to
market risk. For each reinsurance agreement, a reinsurance trust is established in favor of the cedant, and the trustee of the reinsurance trust is a large bank that is agreed upon by our company and the cedant. The premium for the contract is ordinarily deposited into the trust, together with additional capital from our company, up to the coverage limit. Each reinsurance contract contains express limited recourse language to the effect that the liabilities of the relevant reinsurance contract are limited to
the realizable value of the collateral held in respect of that contract. Upon the expiration of the reinsurance contract, the assets of the trust net of insured losses and other expenses are transferred to our company.
Underwriting and Retrocessional Coverage
Most of our reinsurance contracts have other reinsurers participating as lead underwriters, and these lead underwriters generally set the premium for the risk. We follow the premium pricing of the lead underwriters in most cases subject to the guidance of the Underwriting Committee of our Board of Directors. Each quarter, our Board of Directors will set parameters for the
maximum level of capital to be deployed for the quarter and the expected premium and risk profile that each of our contracts must meet.
We have not yet and have no current plans to purchase retrocessional coverage. We may, however, decide to do so in the future to manage our overall exposure and to balance our portfolio and, if we do, we expect that we will only purchase uncollateralized retrocessional coverage from a reinsurer with a minimum financial strength rating of A- from either A.M. Best or Standard
& Poors.
Marketing and Distribution
We expect that, in the future, the majority of our business will be sourced through reinsurance brokers. Brokerage distribution channels provide us with access to an efficient, variable distribution system without the significant time and expense that would be incurred in creating an in-house marketing and distribution network. Reinsurance brokers receive a brokerage commission
that is usually a percentage of gross premiums written.
We intend to build relationships with global reinsurance brokers and captive insurance companies located in the Cayman Islands. Our management team has significant relationships with most of the primary and specialty broker intermediaries in the reinsurance marketplace in our target market. We believe that maintaining close relationships with brokers will give us access
to a broad range of reinsurance clients and opportunities.
Brokers do not have the authority to bind us to any reinsurance contract. We review and approve all contract submissions in our corporate offices located in the Cayman Islands. From time to time, we may also enter into relationships with managing general agents who could bind us to reinsurance contracts based on narrowly defined underwriting guidelines.
Investment Strategy
Our company’s business focus is primarily on underwriting profit. However, we remain opportunistic with respect to investment income, and intend to increase shareholder value through supplemental investment income when favorable opportunities are available. Most of our company’s capital is held in trust accounts that collateralize the reinsurance policies that
we write. The investment parameters for capital held in such trust accounts is generally established by the cedant for the relevant policy. Our investments are held in cash, fixed-maturity securities and equity securities.
Funds that are not held in collateralized trust accounts are generally invested in a relatively conservative manner, with a focus on generating income while equally being liquid.
Our Board of Directors periodically reviews our investment policy and returns.
Claims Management
We have not paid any claims as of March 5, 2016. We anticipate that, for the foreseeable future, we will enter into only a limited number of reinsurance contracts and that, therefore, claims, if any, will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Loss Reserves
Loss reserves represent estimates, including actuarial and statistical projections at a given point in time, of the ultimate settlement and administration costs of claims incurred (including claims incurred but not reported (IBNR)). Estimates are not precise in that, among other things, they are based on predictions of future developments and estimates of future trends in
claims severity and frequency and other variable factors such as inflation. It is likely that the ultimate liability will be greater or less than such estimates and that, at times, this variance will be material.
For our property and other catastrophe policies, we initially establish our loss reserves based on loss payments and case reserves reported by ceding companies. As we are not the only reinsurer on a contract, the lead reinsurer will set the loss amount estimates for the contract and the cedant will have the ability to pay for case losses consistent with that amount on our
pro-rata share of the contract.
We then add to these case reserves our estimates for IBNR. To establish our IBNR estimates, in addition to the loss information and estimates communicated by cedants, we also use industry information, knowledge of the business written by us, management’s judgment and general market trends observed from our underwriting activities. We may also use our computer-based
vendor and proprietary modeling systems to measure and estimate loss exposure under the actual event scenario, if available. Although the loss modeling systems assist with the analysis of the underlying loss, and provide us with information and the ability to perform an enhanced analysis, the estimation of claims resulting from catastrophic events is inherently difficult because of the variability and uncertainty of property catastrophe claims and the unique characteristics of each loss.
If IBNR estimates are made, we assess the validity of the assumptions we use in the reserving process on a quarterly basis during an internal review process. During this process actuaries verify that the assumptions we have made continue to form what they consider to be a sound basis for projection of future liabilities.
Although we believe that we are prudent in our assumptions and methodologies, we cannot be certain that our ultimate payments will not vary, perhaps materially, from the estimates we have made. If we determine that adjustments to an earlier estimate are appropriate, such adjustments are recorded in the quarter in which they are identified. The establishment of new reserves,
or the adjustment of reserves for reported claims, could result in significant upward or downward changes to our financial condition or results of operations in any particular period. We regularly review and update these estimates, using the most current information available to us.
Our estimates, if any, are reviewed annually by an independent actuary in order to provide additional insight into the reasonableness of our loss reserves.
Competition
The reinsurance industry is highly competitive. We expect to compete with major reinsurers, most of which are well established with significant operating histories, strong financial strength ratings, long-standing client relationships.
Our competitors include Third Point Reinsurance Ltd., Blue Capital Reinsurance Holdings Ltd., ACE Ltd., Everest Re, General Re Corporation, Hannover Re Group, Munich Reinsurance Company, Partner Re Ltd., Swiss Reinsurance Company, Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, Berkshire Hathaway, PartnerRe Ltd, Aeolus, and Nephila, as well as smaller companies and other niche reinsurers.
Although we seek to provide coverage where capacity and alternatives are limited, we directly compete with these larger companies due to the breadth of their coverage across the property and casualty market in substantially all lines of business. We also compete with smaller companies and other niche reinsurers from time to time.
While we have a limited operating history, we believe that our unique approach to multi-year underwriting will allow us to be successful in underwriting transactions against more established competitors.
Employees
As of March 5, 2016, we had two employees, both of whom were full time employees. We believe that our relations with our employees are good. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements, and we are not aware of any current efforts to implement such agreements. We believe that we will continue to have relatively few employees and intend to outsource
some functions to specialist firms in the Cayman Islands if and when we determine that such functions are necessary. We intend to use the expertise of our Board of Directors and where necessary, external consultants to provide any other service we may require from time to time.
Risks Relating to Our Business
We are recently formed company and have limited historical information available for investors to evaluate our performance or a potential investment in our securities.
We have a limited history of operations. We were incorporated in April 2013 and began underwriting reinsurance transactions in June 2013. As a result, we have a limited operating history on which to estimate of our future earnings prospects, which may make it difficult for investors to evaluate an investment in our securities. In addition, because our underwriting and investment
strategies may differ from other participants in the property and casualty reinsurance market, you may not be able to compare our business or prospects to other property and casualty reinsurers.
In addition, we cannot assure you that we will raise the funds necessary to further capitalize our subsidiary in order to grow our business. In general, reinsurance and insurance companies in their initial stages of development present substantial business and financial risks and may suffer significant losses. They must develop business relationships, establish operating
procedures, hire staff, install information technology systems, implement management processes and complete other tasks appropriate for the conduct of their intended business activities. In particular, our ability to implement our strategy to penetrate the reinsurance market depends on, among other things:
●
our ability to attract clients;
●
our ability to attract and retain personnel with underwriting, actuarial and accounting and finance expertise;
●
our ability to outsource certain functions of our business without hiring additional personnel;
●
our ability to evaluate the risks we assume under reinsurance contracts that we write; and
●
the risk of being deemed a passive foreign investment company or an investment company if we are unable to implement our business plan and are deemed to not be in the active conduct of an insurance business or to not be predominantly engaged in an insurance business.
We cannot assure you that there will be sufficient demand for the reinsurance products we plan to write to support our planned level of operations, or that we will accomplish the tasks necessary to implement our business strategy. In addition, the business we have written to date is not mature and may be subject to greater losses than we have anticipated.
We will need additional capital in the future in order to grow and operate our business. Such capital may not be available to us or may not be available to us on favorable terms. Furthermore, our raising additional capital could dilute your ownership interest in our company.
We expect that we will need to raise additional capital in the future through public or private equity or debt offerings or otherwise in order to:
●
further capitalize our reinsurance subsidiary and implement our growth strategy;
●
fund liquidity needs caused by underwriting or investment losses;
●
replace capital lost in the event of significant reinsurance losses or adverse reserve developments;
●
meet applicable statutory jurisdiction requirements; and/or
●
respond to competitive pressures.
Additional capital may not be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. Further, any additional capital raised through the sale of equity could dilute your ownership interest in our company and may cause the market price of our ordinary shares and warrants to decline. Additional capital raised through the issuance of debt may result in creditors having rights, preferences
and privileges senior or otherwise superior to those of our ordinary shares and warrants.
Our results of operations will fluctuate from period to period and may not be indicative of our long-term prospects.
We anticipate that the performance of our reinsurance operations and our investment portfolio will fluctuate from period to period. Fluctuations will result from a variety of factors, including:
●
reinsurance contract pricing;
●
our assessment of the quality of available reinsurance opportunities;
●
the volume and mix of reinsurance products we underwrite;
●
loss experience on our reinsurance liabilities;
●
our ability to assess and integrate our risk management strategy properly; and
●
the performance of our investment portfolio.
In particular, we plan to underwrite products and make investments to achieve favorable return on equity over the long term. In addition, our opportunistic nature and focus on long-term growth in book value will result in fluctuations in total premiums written from period to period as we concentrate on underwriting contracts that we believe will generate better long-term,
rather than short-term, results. Accordingly, our short-term results of operations may not be indicative of our long-term prospects.
The positions held by Paresh Patel and Sanjay (Jay) Madhu may present, and make us vulnerable to, difficult conflicts of interest and related legal challenges.
Jay Madhu, our President and Chief Executive Officer, is also a member of the Board of Directors of HCI Group. In addition, Paresh Patel, the non-executive Chairman of our Board of Directors, also holds the positions of Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer at HCI Group, a company whose subsidiaries primarily operate in the property and casualty insurance
and reinsurance markets. Mr. Patel is not an employee of our company and, as such, does not serve our company on a full-time basis.
Because both of Mr. Madhu and Mr. Patel serve on the board of directors at both HCI Group and our company, potential conflicts of interest may arise should the interests of HCI Group and our company diverge. These relationships and potential conflicts could also result in contracts between us and HCI Group and/or its subsidiaries that are less favorable to us than contracts
that could be negotiated with other third parties.
Mr. Madhu’s service as President and Chief Executive Officer of Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited and as a director of HCI Group, as well as Mr. Patel’s service on the board of directors of our company and HCI Group, could also raise a potential challenge under anti-trust laws. Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, or the Clayton Act, prohibits a person from serving
as a director or officer in any two competing corporations under certain circumstances. If HCI Group and Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited are in the future deemed to be competitors within the meaning of the Clayton Act, certain thresholds relating to direct competition between HCI Group and Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited are met, and the Department of Justice and/or Federal Trade Commission challenge the arrangement, Mr. Madhu and/or Mr. Patel may be required to resign his positions with one of the companies and/or
fines or other penalties could be assessed against Mr. Madhu, Mr. Patel, and Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited. We expect that our company and HCI Group and its subsidiaries will have different business focuses and marketing strategies, thus minimizing the risk of direct competition. However, it is possible that the potential for direct competition may exist with respect to the business that we pursue with insurance companies other than HCI Group and its subsidiaries.
The business relationships between us and HCI Group, together with the positions held by our directors and executives with HCI Group, may present difficult conflicts of interest and business opportunity issues.
We may continue to derive a substantial portion of our business from HCI Group subsidiaries during our first few years of operation. Jay Madhu, our Chief Executive Officer and a member of our Board of Directors, is also a member of the board of directors of HCI Group and a former executive officer of HCI Group. Also, Paresh Patel, the non-executive Chairman of our Board
of Directors and largest shareholder of our company, is the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of HCI Group. Because of these business relationships, various conflicts of interest could arise with respect to business opportunities that could be advantageous to HCI Group or its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and us or any of our subsidiaries, on the other hand. Moreover, because of these relationships, HCI Group may have the ability to otherwise significantly influence certain business decisions
by us, including our writing of future policies. These relationships and potential conflicts of interest could also result in contracts between us and HCI Group and/or its subsidiaries that are less favorable to us than contracts that could be negotiated with other third parties.
Reinsurance of HCI Group’s insurance subsidiaries’ business could expose us to substantial risk of loss.
A significant portion of our business is currently with HCI Group’s insurance subsidiaries, and we may continue to have a significant portion of our reinsurance contracts with these subsidiaries in the future. Accordingly, our results of operations may be highly dependent on the results of operations of HCI Group’s insurance subsidiaries. HCI Group insurance
subsidiaries write business in Florida, and as a result, a single catastrophe occurrence, destructive weather pattern, terrorist attack, regulatory development or other condition or general economic trend disproportionately affecting the state of Florida could have a material adverse effect on the subsidiary, and therefore, our financial condition and results of operations.
Failure to become rated by A.M. Best, or receipt of a negative rating, could significantly and negatively affect our ability to grow.
Companies, insurers and reinsurance brokers use ratings from independent ratings agencies as an important means of assessing the financial strength and quality of reinsurers. This rating reflects the rating agency’s opinion of our financial strength, operating performance and ability to meet obligations. It is not an evaluation directed toward the protection of investors
or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold our securities. A.M. Best assigns ratings based on its analysis of balance sheet strength, operating performance and business profile.
Currently, A.M Best has not assigned us a financial strength rating, and we do not intend to seek a rating in the forseesable future. Without a rating, or if we received a negative rating, our growth potential and business strategy will be limited because of the need to collateralize the insurance policies that we write.
Established competitors with greater resources may make it difficult for us to effectively market our products or offer our products at a profit.
The reinsurance industry is highly competitive. We compete with major reinsurers, all of which have substantially greater financial, marketing and management resources than we do. Competition in the types of business that we seek to underwrite is based on many factors, including:
●
the general reputation and perceived financial strength of the reinsurer;
●
relationships with reinsurance brokers;
●
terms and conditions of products offered;
●
ratings assigned by independent rating agencies;
●
speed of claims payment and reputation; and
●
the experience and reputation of the members of our underwriting team in the particular lines of reinsurance we seek to underwrite.
Additionally, although the members of our underwriting team have general experience across many property and casualty lines, they may not have the requisite experience or expertise to compete for all transactions that fall within our strategy of offering customized frequency and severity contracts at times and in markets where capacity and alternatives may be limited.
Our competitors include Third Point Reinsurance Ltd., Blue Capital Reinsurance Holdings Ltd., ACE Ltd., Everest Re, General Re Corporation, Hannover Re Group, Munich Reinsurance Company, Partner Re Ltd., Swiss Reinsurance Company, Transatlantic Reinsurance Company, Berkshire Hathaway, PartnerRe Ltd, Aeolus, and Nephila, as well as smaller companies and other niche reinsurers.
Although we seek to provide coverage where capacity and alternatives are limited, we will directly compete with these larger companies due to the breadth of their coverage across the property and casualty market in substantially all lines of business.
We cannot assure you that we will be able to compete successfully in the reinsurance market. Our failure to compete effectively could significantly and negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations and may increase the likelihood that we may be deemed to be a passive foreign investment company or an investment company.
If actual renewals of our existing contracts do not meet expectations, our premiums assumed in future years and our future results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
Many of our contracts are generally written for a one-year term. In our financial forecasting process, we make assumptions about the renewal of our prior year’s contracts. The insurance and reinsurance industries have historically been cyclical businesses with periods of intense competition, often based on price. If actual renewals do not meet expectations
or if we choose not to write on a renewal basis because of pricing conditions, our premiums assumed in future years and our future operations would be materially adversely affected.
Reputation is an important factor in the reinsurance industry, and our lack of an established reputation may make it difficult for us to attract or retain business.
Reputation is a very important factor in the reinsurance industry, and competition for business is, in part, based on reputation. Although our reinsurance policies will be fully collateralized, we are a relatively newly formed reinsurance company and do not yet have a well-established reputation in the reinsurance industry. Our lack of an established reputation may make
it difficult for us to attract or retain business. In addition, we do not have or currently intend to obtain financial strength ratings, which may discourage certain counterparties from entering into reinsurance contracts with us.
If our losses and loss adjustment expenses greatly exceed our loss reserves, our financial condition may be significantly and negatively affected.
Our results of operations and financial condition will depend upon our ability to accurately assess the potential losses and loss adjustment expenses associated with the risks we reinsure. Reserves are estimates at a given time of claims an insurer ultimately expects to pay, based upon facts and circumstances then known, predictions of future events, estimates of future
trends in claim severity and other variable factors. The inherent uncertainties of estimating loss reserves are generally greater for reinsurance companies as compared to primary insurers, primarily due to:
●
the lapse of time from the occurrence of an event to the reporting of the claim and the ultimate resolution or settlement of the claim;
●
the diversity of development patterns among different types of reinsurance treaties; and
●
the necessary reliance on the client for information regarding claims.
Our estimation of reserves may be less reliable than the reserve estimations of a reinsurer with a greater volume of business and an established loss history. Our actual losses and loss adjustment expenses paid may deviate substantially from the estimates of our loss reserves and could negatively affect our results of operations. If our loss reserves are later found to be
inadequate, we would increase our loss reserves with a corresponding reduction in our net income and capital in the period in which we identify the deficiency, and such a reduction would also negatively affect our results of operations. If our losses and loss adjustment expenses greatly exceed our loss reserves, our financial condition may be significantly and negatively affected.
The property and casualty reinsurance market may be affected by cyclical trends.
We write reinsurance in the property and casualty markets, which tend to be cyclical in nature. Ceding company underwriting results, prevailing general economic and market conditions, liability retention decisions of companies and ceding companies and reinsurance premium rates each influence the demand for property and casualty reinsurance. Prevailing prices and available
surplus to support assumed business then influence reinsurance supply. Supply may fluctuate in response to changes in return on capital realized in the reinsurance industry, the frequency and severity of losses and prevailing general economic and market conditions.
Continued increases in the supply of reinsurance may have consequences for the reinsurance industry generally and for us, including lower premium rates, increased expenses for customer acquisition and retention, less favorable policy terms and conditions and/or lower premium volume. Furthermore, unpredictable developments, including courts granting increasingly larger awards
for certain damages, increases in the frequency of natural disasters (such as hurricanes, windstorms, tornados, earthquakes, wildfires and floods), fluctuations in interest rates, changes in the investment environment that affect market prices of investments and inflationary pressures, affect the industry’s profitability. The effects of cyclicality could significantly and negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Our property and property catastrophe reinsurance operations will make us vulnerable to losses from catastrophes and may cause our results of operations to vary significantly from period to period.
Our reinsurance operations expose us to claims arising out of unpredictable catastrophic events, such as hurricanes, hailstorms, tornados, windstorms, earthquakes, floods, fires, explosions, and other natural or man-made disasters. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable but the loss experience of property catastrophe reinsurers has been generally
characterized as low frequency and high severity. Claims from catastrophic events could reduce our earnings and cause substantial volatility in our results of operations for any fiscal quarter or year and adversely affect our financial condition. Corresponding reductions in our surplus levels could impact our ability to write new reinsurance policies.
Catastrophic losses are a function of the insured exposure in the affected area and the severity of the event. Because accounting regulations do not permit reinsurers to reserve for catastrophic events until they occur, claims from catastrophic events could cause substantial volatility in our financial results for any fiscal quarter or year and could significantly and negatively
affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We could face unanticipated losses from war, terrorism, and political unrest, and these or other unanticipated losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Like other reinsurers, we face potential exposure to large, unexpected losses resulting from man-made catastrophic events, such as acts of war, acts of terrorism and political instability. These risks are inherently unpredictable and recent events may indicate that the frequency and severity of these types of losses may increase. It is difficult to predict the timing of
these events or to estimate the amount of loss that any given occurrence will generate. To the extent that losses from these risks occur, our financial condition and results of operations could be significantly and negatively affected.
We depend on our clients’ evaluations of the risks associated with their insurance underwriting, which may subject us to reinsurance losses.
In the proportional reinsurance business, in which we assume an agreed percentage of each underlying insurance contract being reinsured, or quota share contracts, we do not separately evaluate each of the original individual risks assumed under these reinsurance contracts. Therefore, we are largely dependent on the original underwriting decisions made by ceding companies.
We are subject to the risk that the clients may not have adequately evaluated the insured risks and that the premiums ceded may not adequately compensate us for the risks we assume. We also do not separately evaluate each of the individual claims made on the underlying insurance contracts under quota share arrangements. Therefore, we are dependent on the original claims decisions made by our clients.
Changing climate conditions may adversely affect our financial condition, profitability or cash flows.
Climate change, to the extent it produces extreme changes in temperatures and changes in weather patterns, could impact the frequency or severity of weather events and wildfires. Further, it could impact the affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, which could have an impact on pricing. Changes in weather patterns could also affect the frequency and severity
of other natural catastrophe events to which we may be exposed. The occurrence of these events would significantly and negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Operational risks, including human or systems failures, are inherent in our business.
Operational risks and losses can result from, among other things, fraud, errors, failure to document transactions properly or to obtain proper internal authorization, failure to comply with regulatory requirements, information technology failures or external events.
We believe that our modeling, underwriting and information technology and application systems are critical to our business and our growth prospects. Moreover, we rely on our information technology and application systems to further our underwriting process and to enhance our ability to compete successfully. A major defect or failure in our internal controls or information
technology and application systems could result in management distraction, harm to our reputation or increased expenses.
The effect of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business is uncertain.
As industry practices and legal, judicial and regulatory conditions change, unexpected issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. It is possible that certain provisions of our future reinsurance contracts, such as limitations or exclusions from coverage or choice of forum, may be difficult to enforce in the manner we intend, due to, among other things, disputes relating
to coverage and choice of legal forum. These issues may adversely affect our business by either extending coverage beyond the period that we intended or by increasing the number or size of claims. In some instances, these changes may not manifest themselves until many years after we have issued insurance or reinsurance contracts that are affected by these changes. As a result, we may not be able to ascertain the full extent of our liabilities under our insurance or reinsurance contracts for many years following
the issuance of our contracts. The effects of unforeseen development or substantial government intervention could adversely impact our ability to adhere to our goals.
We are required to maintain sufficient collateral accounts, which could significantly and negatively affect our ability to implement our business strategy.
We are not licensed or admitted as a reinsurer in any jurisdiction other than the Cayman Islands. Certain jurisdictions, including the United States, do not permit insurance companies to take credit for reinsurance obtained from unlicensed or non-admitted insurers on their statutory financial statements unless appropriate security measures are implemented. Consequently,
we must continue to maintain sufficient funds in escrow accounts to serve as collateral for our reinsurance contracts. Because we intend to continue to utilize our funds (rather than utilizing the credit markets) to serve as collateral for our reinsurance obligations, we may not be able to fully utilize our capital to expand our reinsurance coverage as rapidly as other reinsurers.
The inability to obtain business provided from brokers could adversely affect our business strategy and results of operations.
We anticipate that a substantial portion of our business will be placed primarily through brokered transactions, which involve a limited number of reinsurance brokers. If we are unable to identify and grow the brokered business provided through one or more of these reinsurance brokers, many of whom may not be familiar with our Cayman Islands jurisdiction, this failure could
significantly and negatively affect our business and results of operations.
The involvement of reinsurance brokers may subject us to their credit risk.
As a standard practice of the reinsurance industry, reinsurers frequently pay amounts owed on claims under their policies to reinsurance brokers, and these brokers, in turn, remit these amounts to the ceding companies that have reinsured a portion of their liabilities with the reinsurer. In some jurisdictions, if a broker fails to make such a payment, the reinsurer might
remain liable to the client for the deficiency notwithstanding the broker’s obligation to make such payment. Conversely, in certain jurisdictions, when the client pays premiums for policies to reinsurance brokers for payment to the reinsurer, these premiums are considered to have been paid and the client will no longer be liable to the reinsurer for these premiums, whether or not the reinsurer has actually received them. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with the brokers that we
do business with.
We may be unable to purchase reinsurance for the liabilities we reinsure, and if we successfully purchase such reinsurance, we may be unable to collect, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Retrocessional coverage (reinsurance for the liabilities we reinsure) may not always be available to us. From time to time, we expect that we will purchase retrocessional coverage for our own account in order to mitigate the effect of a potential concentration of losses upon our financial condition. The insolvency or inability or refusal of a reinsurer of reinsurance to
make payments under the terms of its agreement with us could have an adverse effect on us because we remain liable to our client. From time to time, market conditions have limited, and in some cases have prevented, reinsurers from obtaining the types and amounts of retrocession that they consider adequate for their business needs. Accordingly, we may not be able to obtain our desired amounts of retrocessional coverage or negotiate terms that we deem appropriate or acceptable or obtain retrocession from entities
with satisfactory creditworthiness. Our failure to establish adequate retrocessional arrangements or the failure of our retrocessional arrangements to protect us from overly concentrated risk exposure could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
U.S. and global economic downturns could harm our business, our liquidity and financial condition and the price of our securities.
Weak economic conditions may adversely affect (among other aspects of our business) the demand for and claims made under our products, the ability of customers, counterparties and others to establish or maintain their relationships with us, our ability to access and efficiently use internal and external capital resources and our investment performance. Volatility in the
U.S. and other securities markets may adversely affect our investment portfolio and our resulting results of operations.
Our ability to implement our business strategy could be delayed or adversely affected by Cayman Islands employment restrictions.
Under Cayman Islands law, persons who are not Caymanian, do not possess Caymanian status, or are not otherwise entitled to reside and work in the Cayman Islands pursuant to provisions of the Immigration Law (2015 Revision) of the Cayman Islands, which we refer to as the Immigration Law, may not engage in any gainful occupation in the Cayman Islands without an appropriate
governmental work permit. The failure to obtain work permits, or extensions thereof, for our employees could prevent us from continuing to implement our business strategy.
If we lose or are unable to retain our senior management and other key personnel and are unable to attract qualified personnel, our ability to implement our business strategy could be delayed or hindered, which, in turn, could significantly and negatively affect our business.
Although we only employ two individuals, both of whom are members of senior management, our future success depends to a significant extent on the efforts of our senior management and other key personnel (who have not yet been hired) to implement our business strategy. We believe there are only a limited number of available, qualified executives with substantial experience
in our industry. In addition, we will need to add personnel, including underwriters, to implement our business strategy. We could face challenges attracting personnel to the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, the loss of the services of one or more of the members of our senior management or other key personnel (when hired), or our inability to hire and retain other key personnel, could delay or prevent us from fully implementing our business strategy and, consequently, significantly and negatively affect our business.
We do not currently maintain key man life insurance with respect to any of our senior management. If any member of senior management dies or becomes incapacitated, or leaves the Company to pursue employment opportunities elsewhere, we would be solely responsible for locating an adequate replacement for such senior management and for bearing any related cost. To the extent
that we are unable to locate an adequate replacement or are unable to do so within a reasonable period of time, our business may be significantly and negatively affected.
There are differences under Cayman Islands corporate law and Delaware corporate law with respect to interested party transactions which may benefit certain of our shareholders at the expense of other shareholders.
Under Cayman Islands corporate law, a director may vote on a contract or transaction where the director has an interest as a shareholder, director, officer or employee provided such interest is disclosed. None of our contracts will be deemed to be void because any director is an interested party in such transaction and interested parties will not be held liable for monies
owed to the company. Under Delaware law, interested party transactions are voidable.
Risks Relating to Insurance and Other Regulations
Any suspension or revocation of our reinsurance license would materially impact our ability to do business and implement our business strategy.
Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited is licensed as an insurer only in the Cayman Islands by the CIMA, and we do not intend to obtain a license in any other jurisdiction. The suspension or revocation of our license to do business as a reinsurance company in the Cayman Islands for any reason would mean that we would not be able to enter into any new reinsurance contracts until the
suspension ended or we became licensed in another jurisdiction. Any such suspension or revocation of our license would negatively impact our reputation in the reinsurance marketplace and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
As a regulated insurance company, Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited is subject to the supervision of CIMA and CIMA may at any time direct Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited, in relation to a policy, a line of business or the entire business, to cease or refrain from committing an act or pursing a course of conduct and to perform such acts as in the opinion of CIMA are necessary to
remedy or ameliorate the situation.
Furthermore, in certain circumstances, including when CIMA is of the opinion that:
●
a licensee either is or appears to be likely to become unable to meet its obligations as they fall due;
●
a licensee is carrying on its business in a manner which is seen as detrimental to the general public interest or to the interests of its creditors or policy holders;
●
the activities of any member of the licensee’s insurance group are detrimental to those interests of the licensee’s creditors, as well as its policy holders;
●
a licensee has contravened the Law or the Money Laundering Regulations (2015 Revision) of the Cayman Islands;
●
the licensee has failed to comply with a condition of its license such as maintaining a margin of solvency as prescribed by CIMA;
●
the direction and/or management of the licensee’s business has not been conducted in a fit and proper manner;
●
a director, manager or officer of the licensee’s business is not someone who would qualify or be seen as a person suitable to hold the respective position;
●
any person who is either holding or acquiring control or ownership of the licensee is not a fit and proper person to have such control or ownership;
●
the licensee has ceased to carry on business; or
●
the licensee is placed in liquidation or is dissolved;
CIMA may take one of a number of steps, including:
●
requiring the licensee to take steps to rectify the matter;
●
suspending the license of the licensee pending a full inquiry into the licensee’s affairs;
●
imposing conditions upon the licensee in terms of decisions made by it, including the suspension of voting rights or nullification of votes cast by it, and amending or revoking any such condition;
●
requiring the substitution or removal of any director, manager or officer of the licensee, at the expense of the licensee;
●
appointing a person to advise the licensee on the proper conduct of its affairs, at the expense of the licensee;
●
appointing a person to assume control of the licensee’s affairs; or
●
otherwise requiring such action to be taken by the licensee as CIMA considers necessary.
Failures to comply with a direction given by CIMA may be punishable by a fine of up to five hundred thousand Cayman Islands dollars (US$609,756.10 based on the Cayman Islands’ pegged exchange rate of CI$0.82 per US$1.00 as of March 5, 2016) or imprisonment for a term of five years or both, and a fine of an additional ten thousand Cayman Islands dollars (US$12,195.12)
for every day after conviction on which the offense so continues.
Our reinsurance subsidiary is subject to minimum capital and surplus requirements, and our failure to meet these requirements could subject us to regulatory action.
Pursuant to the Capital and Solvency Regulations, Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited, our reinsurance subsidiary, is required to maintain the statutory minimum capital requirement (as defined under the Capital and Solvency Regulations) of $500 and prescribed capital requirement (as defined under the Capital and Solvency Regulations) of $500, and a minimum margin of solvency equal
to or in excess of the total prescribed capital requirement. Any failure to meet the applicable requirements or minimum statutory capital requirements could subject us to further examination or corrective action by CIMA, including restrictions on dividend payments, limitations on our writing of additional business or engaging in finance activities, supervision or liquidation.
As a holding company, we will depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends.
We are a holding company and do not have any significant operations or assets other than our ownership of the shares of our subsidiaries (currently only Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited). Dividends and other permitted distributions from our subsidiaries will be our primary source of funds to meet ongoing cash requirements, including future debt service payments, if any, and
other expenses, and to pay dividends to our shareholders if we choose to do so. Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited, as well as some of our future subsidiaries, will be subject to applicable law as well as significant regulatory restrictions limiting their ability to declare and pay dividends. The inability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends in an amount sufficient to enable us to meet our cash requirements at the holding company level could have an adverse effect on our operations and our ability to pay dividends
to our shareholders if we choose to do so and/or meet our debt service obligations, if any.
We are subject to the risk of possibly becoming an investment company under U.S. federal securities law.
In the United States, the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), regulates certain companies that invest in or trade securities. We rely on an exemption under the Investment Company Act for an entity organized and regulated as a foreign insurance company which is engaged primarily and predominantly in the reinsurance of risks
on insurance agreements. The law in this area is subjective and there is a lack of guidance as to the meaning of ‘‘primarily and predominantly’’ under the relevant exemption to the Investment Company Act. For example, there is no standard for the amount of premiums that need to be written relative to the level of an entity’s capital in order to qualify for the exemption. If this exception were deemed inapplicable, we would have to seek to register under the Investment Company Act
as an investment company, which, under the Investment Company Act, would require an order from the SEC. Our inability to obtain such an order could have a significant adverse impact on our business, as we might have to cease certain operations or risk substantial penalties for violating the Investment Company Act.
Registered investment companies are subject to extensive, restrictive and potentially adverse regulation relating to, among other things, capital structure, leverage, management, dividends and transactions with affiliates. Registered investment companies are not permitted to operate their business in the manner in which we operate (and intend to operate) our business. Specifically,
if we were required to register under the Investment Company Act, provisions of the Investment Company Act would limit (and in some cases even prohibit) our ability to raise additional debt and equity securities or issue options or warrants (which could impact our ability to compensate key employees), limit our ability to use financial leverage, limit our ability to incur indebtedness, and require changes to the composition of our Board of Directors. Provisions of the Investment Company Act would also prohibit
(subject to certain exceptions) transactions with affiliates. Accordingly, if we were required to register as an investment company, we would not be permitted to have many of the relationships that we have or expect that we may have with affiliated companies.
If at any time it were established that we had been operating as an investment company in violation of the registration requirements of the Investment Company Act, there would be a risk, among other material adverse consequences, that we could become subject to monetary penalties or injunctive relief, or both, or that we would be unable to enforce contracts with third parties
or that third parties could seek to obtain rescission of transactions with us undertaken during the period in which it was established that we were an unregistered investment company.
To the extent that the laws and regulations change in the future so that contracts we write are deemed not to be reinsurance contracts, we will be at greater risk of not qualifying for the Investment Company Act exemption. Additionally, it is possible that our classification as an investment company would result in the suspension or revocation of our reinsurance license.
Insurance regulations to which we are, or may become, subject, and potential changes thereto, could have a significant and negative effect on our business.
Although we do not presently expect that we will conduct business in any jurisdiction other than the Cayman Islands, we cannot assure you that insurance regulators in the United States or elsewhere will not review our activities and claim that we are subject to such jurisdiction’s insurance licensing requirements. In addition, we are subject to indirect regulatory
requirements imposed by jurisdictions that may limit our ability to provide reinsurance. For example, our ability to write reinsurance may be subject, in certain cases, to arrangements satisfactory to applicable regulatory bodies, and proposed legislation and regulations may have the effect of imposing additional requirements upon, or restricting the market for, non-U.S. reinsurers such as Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited, with whom domestic companies may place business. We do not know of any such proposed legislation
pending at this time.
Furthermore, we may not be able to comply fully with, or obtain desired exemptions from, revised statutes, regulations and policies that currently, or may in the future, govern the conduct of our business. Failure to comply with, or to obtain desired authorizations and/or exemptions under, any applicable laws could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or
undertake activities that are regulated in the jurisdiction in which operate and could subject us to fines and other sanctions. In addition, changes in the laws or regulations to which our subsidiary is subject or may become subject, or in the interpretations thereof by enforcement or regulatory agencies, could have a material adverse effect on our business, our business plans, and our growth strategy.
We will likely be exposed to credit risk due to the possibility that counterparties may default on their obligations to us.
Due to our investments in our portfolio, we are exposed to credit risk due to the possibility that counterparties may default on their obligations to us. Issuers or borrowers whose securities or debt we hold, customers, reinsurers, clearing agents, exchanges, clearing houses and other financial intermediaries and guarantors may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy,
insolvency, lack of liquidity, adverse economic conditions, operational failure, fraud or other reasons. Such defaults could have a significant and negative effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
Risks Relating to our Securities
Provisions of our Third Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association (“Articles”) could adversely affect the value of our securities.
Our Articles permit our Board of Directors to allot, issue, grant options over or otherwise dispose of further shares (including fractions of such share) with or without preferred, deferred or other rights or restrictions, whether in regard to dividend or other distribution, voting, return of capital or otherwise and to such persons, at such times and on such other terms
as they consider appropriate. Accordingly, our Board of Directors may authorize the issuance of preferred shares with terms and conditions and under circumstances that could have an effect of discouraging a takeover or other transaction, deny shareholders the receipt of a premium on their ordinary shares in the event of a tender or other offer for ordinary shares and have a depressive effect on the value of our ordinary shares.
Provisions of the Companies Law of the Cayman Islands could prevent a merger or takeover of our company.
As compared to mergers under corporate law in the United States, it may be more difficult to consummate a merger of two or more companies in the Cayman Islands or the merger of one or more Cayman Islands companies with one or more overseas companies, even if such transaction would be beneficial to our shareholders. The Companies Law of the Cayman Islands, as amended (the
“Companies Law”), permits mergers and consolidations between Cayman Islands companies and between Cayman Islands companies and non-Cayman Islands companies. For these purposes, (a) “merger” means the merging of two or more constituent companies and the vesting of their undertaking, property and liabilities in one of such companies as the surviving company and (b) a “consolidation” means the combination of two or more constituent companies into a combined company and the vesting
of the undertaking, property and liabilities of such companies to the consolidated company. In order to effect such a merger or consolidation, the directors of each constituent company must approve a written plan of merger or consolidation, which must then be authorized by (a) a special resolution of the shareholders of each constituent company, and (b) such other authorization, if any, as may be specified in such constituent company’s articles of association. The written plan of merger or consolidation
must be filed with the Registrar of Companies together with a declaration as to the solvency of the consolidated or surviving company, a list of the assets and liabilities of each constituent company and an undertaking that a copy of the certificate of merger or consolidation will be given to the shareholders and creditors of each constituent company and that notification of the merger or consolidation will be published in the Cayman Islands Gazette. Dissenting shareholders have the right to be paid the fair
value of their shares (which, if not agreed between the parties, will be determined by the Cayman Islands court) if they follow the required procedures, subject to certain exceptions. Court approval is not required for a merger or consolidation which is effected in compliance with these statutory procedures.
In addition, there are statutory provisions that facilitate the reconstruction and amalgamation of companies, provided that the arrangement is approved by a majority in number of each class of shareholders or creditors (representing 75% by value) with whom the arrangement is to be made and who must, in addition, represent three-fourths in value of each such class of shareholders
or creditors, as the case may be, that are present and voting either in person or by proxy at a meeting, or meetings, convened for that purpose. The convening of the meetings and subsequently the arrangement must be sanctioned by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. While a dissenting shareholder has the right to express to the court the view that the transaction ought not to be approved, the court can be expected to approve the arrangement if it determines that:
●
the statutory provisions as to the required majority vote have been met;
●
the shareholders have been fairly represented at the meeting in question and the statutory majority are acting bona fide without coercion of the minority to promote interests adverse to those of the class;
●
the arrangement is such that may be reasonably approved by an intelligent and honest man of that class acting in respect of his interest; and
●
the arrangement is not one that would more properly be sanctioned under some other provision of the Companies Law.
When a takeover offer is made and accepted by holders of 90% of the shares within four months, the offeror may, within a two-month period commencing on the expiration of such four month period, require the holders of the remaining shares to transfer such shares on the terms of the offer. An objection can be made to the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands, but such objection
is unlikely to succeed in the case of an offer which has been so approved unless there is evidence of fraud, bad faith or collusion.
If an arrangement and reconstruction is thus approved, the dissenting shareholder would have no rights comparable to appraisal rights, which would otherwise ordinarily be available to dissenting shareholders of certain corporations incorporated in the United States, including Delaware corporations, providing rights to receive payment in cash for the judicially determined
value of the shares.
Holders of our securities may have difficulty obtaining or enforcing a judgment against us, and they may face difficulties in protecting their interests because we are incorporated under Cayman Islands law.
Because we are a Cayman Islands company, there is uncertainty as to whether the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands would recognize or enforce judgments of United States courts obtained against us predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof, or be competent to hear original actions brought in the Cayman Islands
against us predicated upon the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof.
We are incorporated as an exempted company limited by shares under the Companies Law. A significant amount of our assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for persons purchasing our securities to effect service of process within the United States upon us or to enforce judgments against us or judgments obtained in U.S. courts predicated
upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States or any state of the United States.
Although there is no statutory enforcement in the Cayman Islands of judgments obtained in the United States, the courts of the Cayman Islands will, based on the principle that a judgment by a competent foreign court will impose upon the judgment debtor an obligation to pay the sum for which judgment has been given, recognize and enforce a foreign judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction if such judgment is final, for a liquidated sum, not in respect of taxes or a fine or penalty if not inconsistent with a Cayman Islands judgment in respect of the same matters, and was not obtained in a manner, and is not of a kind, the enforcement of which is contrary to the public policy of the Cayman Islands. There is doubt, however, as to whether the courts of the Cayman Islands will, in an original action in the Cayman Islands, recognize or enforce judgments of U.S. courts predicated upon the
civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state of the United States on the grounds that such provisions are penal in nature. Furthermore, a Cayman Islands court may stay proceedings if concurrent proceedings are being brought elsewhere.
Unlike many jurisdictions in the United States, Cayman Islands law does not specifically provide for shareholder appraisal rights on a merger or consolidation of an entity. This may make it more difficult for shareholders to assess the value of any consideration they may receive in a merger or consolidation or to require that the offeror give a shareholder additional consideration
if he believes the consideration offered is insufficient. In addition, shareholders of Cayman Islands exempted companies such as ours have no general rights under Cayman Islands law to inspect corporate records and accounts. Our directors have discretion under our Articles to determine whether or not, and under what conditions, the corporate records may be inspected by shareholders, but are not obligated to make them available to shareholders. This fact may make it more difficult for shareholders to obtain the
information needed to establish any facts necessary for a shareholder motion or to solicit proxies from other shareholders in connection with a proxy contest. Finally, subject to limited exceptions, under Cayman Islands law, a minority shareholder may not bring a derivative action against our Board of Directors.
Provisions of our Articles may reallocate the voting power of our ordinary shares.
In certain circumstances, the total voting power of our ordinary shares held by any one person will be reduced to less than 9.9% of the total voting power of the total issued and outstanding ordinary shares. In the event a holder of our ordinary shares acquires shares representing 9.9% or more of the total voting power of our total ordinary shares, there will be an effective
reallocation of the voting power of the ordinary shares as described in the Articles.
We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain whether the reduced disclosure requirements and relief from certain other significant obligations that are applicable to emerging growth companies will make our securities less attractive to investors.
We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” including, but not limited to, not being required to comply
with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, less extensive disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements, exemptions from the requirements to hold a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved and an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This may make comparison of our financial
statements with any other public company that is either not an emerging growth company or is an emerging growth company that has opted out of using the extended transition period difficult, as different or revised standards may be used by such companies. We cannot predict if investors will find our securities less attractive because we will rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our securities less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our securities and the price of
our securities may be more volatile.
Risks Relating to Taxation
We may become subject to taxation in the Cayman Islands which would negatively affect our results.
Under current Cayman Islands law, we are not obligated to pay any taxes in the Cayman Islands on either income or capital gains. The Governor-in-Cabinet of Cayman Islands has granted us an exemption from the imposition of any such tax on us for twenty years from April 23, 2013. We cannot be assured that after such date we would not be subject to any such tax. If we were
to become subject to taxation in the Cayman Islands, our financial condition and results of operations could be significantly and negatively affected.
We may be subject to United States federal income taxation.
We are incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands and intend to operate in a manner that will not cause us to be treated as engaging in a United States trade or business and will not cause us to be subject to current United States federal income taxation on our income. However, because there are no definitive standards provided by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the “Code”), regulations or court decisions as to the specific activities that constitute being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, and as any such determination is essentially factual in nature, we cannot assure you that the United States Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, will not successfully assert that we are engaged in a trade or business in the United States and thus are subject to current United States federal income taxation.
We may be treated as a PFIC, in which case a U.S. holder of our ordinary shares should be subject to disadvantageous rules under U.S. federal income tax laws.
Significant potential adverse United States federal income tax consequences generally apply to any United States person who owns shares in a “passive foreign investment company”, or PFIC. In general, a non-U.S. corporation is classified as a PFIC for a taxable year in which, after taking into account the income and assets of the corporation and certain subsidiaries
pursuant to certain look-through rules, either (i) 75% or more of its gross income is passive income, or (ii) 50% or more of the average quarterly value of its gross assets is attributable to assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income. In general, either of Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited or Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited would be deemed to be a PFIC for a taxable year if 75% or more of its income constitutes ‘‘passive income’’ or 50% or more of its
assets produce ‘‘passive income.’’
Passive income generally includes interest, dividends and other investment income but does not include income derived in the active conduct of an insurance business by a corporation predominantly engaged in an insurance business. This exception for insurance companies is intended to ensure that a bona fide insurance company’s income is not treated as passive income,
except to the extent such income is attributable to financial reserves in excess of the reasonable needs of the insurance business. We believe that we are currently operating and intend to continue operating our business with financial reserves at a level that should not cause us to be deemed PFICs, although we cannot assure you the IRS will not successfully challenge this conclusion. In addition, sufficient risk must be transferred under an insurance company’s contracts with its insureds in order to qualify
for the insurance exception. Whether our insurance contracts possess adequate risk transfer for purposes of determining whether income under our contracts is insurance income, and whether we are predominantly engaged in the insurance business, are subjective in nature and there is very little authority on these issues. We cannot assure you that the IRS will not successfully challenge the level of risk transfer under our reinsurance contracts for purposes of the insurance company exception, nor can we cannot assure
you that the IRS will not successfully challenge our interpretation of the scope of the active insurance company exception and our qualification for the exception. Further, the IRS may issue regulatory or other guidance that causes us to fail to qualify for the active insurance company exception on a prospective or retroactive basis. Therefore, we cannot assure you that we will satisfy the exception for insurance companies and will not be treated as PFICs currently or in the future. Although we do not expect
that we were a PFIC in 2015, nor do we expect to be a PFIC in 2016 or thereafter, no assurance can be provided in that regard or as to our status in future years. If you are a United States person, we advise you to consult your own tax advisor concerning the potential tax consequences to you under the PFIC rules.
We may be treated as a CFC and may be subject to the rules for related person insurance income, and in either case this may subject a U.S. holder of our ordinary shares to disadvantageous rules under U.S. federal income tax laws.
Controlled Foreign Corporation
. United States persons who, directly or indirectly or through attribution rules, own 10% or more of our ordinary shares, which we refer to as United States 10% shareholders, may be subject to the controlled foreign corporation, or CFC, rules. Under the controlled foreign corporation rules of the Code,
each United States 10% shareholder must annually include his pro rata share of the controlled foreign corporation’s ‘‘subpart F income,’’ even if no distributions are made. In general, a foreign insurance company will be treated as a controlled foreign corporation only if United States 10% shareholders collectively own more than 25% of the total combined voting power or total value of the company’s shares for an uninterrupted period of 30 days or more during any year. We believe
that the anticipated dispersion of our ordinary shares among holders and the restrictions placed on transfer, issuance or repurchase of our ordinary shares, will generally prevent shareholders who acquire ordinary shares from being United States 10% shareholders. In addition, because our Articles prevent any person from holding 9.9% or more of the total combined voting power of our shares (whether held directly, indirectly, or constructively), unless such provision is waived by the unanimous consent of our Board
of Directors, we believe no persons holding ordinary shares should be viewed as United States 10% shareholders of a CFC for purposes of the CFC rules. We cannot assure you, however, that these rules will not apply to you. If you are a United States person we strongly urge you to consult your own tax advisor concerning the controlled foreign corporation rules.
Related Person Insurance Income
. A different definition of CFC is applicable in the case of a foreign corporation which earns “related person insurance income” (“RPII”). RPII is a Code Subpart F insurance income attributable to insurance policies or reinsurance contracts where the person that is directly or
indirectly insured or reinsured is a RPII shareholder or a related person to the RPII shareholder. A “RPII shareholder” is a United States person who owns, directly or indirectly through foreign entities, any amount of our ordinary shares. Generally, for purposes of the RPII rules, a related person is someone who controls or is controlled by the RPII shareholder or someone who is controlled by the same person or persons which control the RPII shareholder. Control is measured by either more than 50%
in value or more than 50% in voting power of shares after applying certain constructive ownership rules. For purposes of taking into account RPII, and subject to the exceptions described below, Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited will be treated as a CFC if our RPII shareholders collectively own, indirectly, 25% or more of the total combined voting power or value of their respective shares on any day during a taxable year. If Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited is a CFC for an uninterrupted period of at least 30 days during
any taxable year under the special RPII rules, any U.S. Holder that owns ordinary shares on the last day of any such taxable year must include in gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes the U.S. Holder’s allocable share of the RPII of Oxbridge Reinsurance Limited for the entire taxable year, subject to certain modifications. Among other exceptions, the RPII rules do not apply if the insurance company’s RPII, determined on a gross basis, is less than 20% of such respective entity’s
gross insurance income for such taxable year. We do not believe that the 20% gross insurance income threshold will be met. However, we cannot assure you that this is or will continue to be the case. Consequently, we cannot assure you that a person who is a direct or indirect United States shareholder will not be required to include amounts in its income in respect of RPII in any taxable year.
United States tax-exempt organizations who own ordinary shares may recognize unrelated business taxable income.
If you are a United States tax-exempt organization you may recognize unrelated business taxable income if a portion of our Code Subpart F insurance income is allocated to you. In general, Code Subpart F insurance income will be allocated to you if we are a CFC as discussed above and you are a United States 10% shareholder or there is related person insurance income and certain
exceptions do not apply. Although we do not believe that any United States persons will be allocated Code Subpart F insurance income, we cannot assure you that this will be the case. If you are a United States tax-exempt organization, we advise you to consult your own tax advisor regarding the risk of recognizing unrelated business taxable income.
Changes in United States tax laws may be retroactive and could subject us, and/or United States persons who own ordinary shares to United States income taxation on our undistributed earnings.
The tax laws and interpretations regarding whether a company is engaged in a United States trade or business, is a CFC, has RPII, or is a PFIC are subject to change, possibly on a retroactive basis. There are currently no regulations regarding the application of the PFIC rules to an insurance company and the regulations regarding RPII are still in proposed form. New regulations
or pronouncements interpreting or clarifying such rules may be forthcoming from the IRS. We are not able to predict if, when or in what form such guidance will be provided and whether such guidance will have a retroactive effect.