Company: KG
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form Type: S-4
Source: 0001104659-25-021993
Chunk: 33

Company: Kestrel Group Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-03-10
Form: S-4
Chunk 33
---
 for each Maiden share in accordance with the Bermuda Companies Act and (v) resolved to recommend and submit to the Maiden shareholders for approval at the Maiden special meeting the first merger approval bye-law proposal and the first merger resolution.

<div align='center'>18</div>

**TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Maiden board unanimously recommends that Maiden shareholders vote:**

•

#### “FOR” the voting cutback proposal;
•

#### “FOR” the first merger approval bye-law proposal;
•

#### “FOR” the first merger resolution;
•

#### “FOR” the adjournment proposal;
•

#### “FOR” the Bermuda NewCo equity plan proposal; and
**•

“FOR” the advisory vote on merger-related compensation proposal.**

See “The Transaction — Maiden’s Reasons for the Transaction” beginning on page 82.

### Opinion of Maiden’s Financial Advisor (Page85)
On December 29, 2024, IAP, Maiden’s financial advisor, rendered to the Maiden board an oral opinion, which was confirmed by delivery of a written opinion, dated December 29, 2024, to the effect that, as of that date and based on and subject to the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations and qualifications described in the written opinion, the Kestrel merger consideration was fair, from a financial point of view, to Maiden and Maiden shareholders.

The full text of the written opinion of IAP to the Maiden board, which describes, among other things, the assumptions made, procedures followed, factors considered and limitations and qualifications on the review undertaken, is attached as Annex C to this proxy statement/prospectus and is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. IAP delivered its opinion for the benefit and use of the Maiden board (in its capacity as such) in connection with and for purposes of its evaluation of the Kestrel merger consideration from a financial point of view. IAP’s opinion did not address any other aspect of the transaction and no opinion or view was expressed by IAP as to the relative merits of the transaction in comparison to other strategies or transactions that might be available to Maiden or in which Maiden might engage or as to the underlying business decision of Maiden to proceed with or effect the transaction. IAP expressed no opinion or recommendation as to how any Maiden shareholder should vote or act in connection with the transaction or any other matter. It should be noted that IAP’s opinion speaks only as of the date rendered and not as of any subsequent date, including the date on which the transaction is completed. Although subsequent developments