Company: KG
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001628280-25-049606
Chunk: 218

Company: Kestrel Group Ltd
Filing Date: 2025-11-05
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 218
---
uro Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshalek. The Third Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s holding that the current case record required judgment for Maiden, as a matter of law, on the issue of whether Maiden’s loss reserves were misleading. The Court explained further that it was not issuing a ruling on the element of scienter. The Third Circuit therefore vacated the opinion of the District Court and remanded the case to the District Court with instructions to permit plaintiffs to pursue discovery with respect to their claims for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Third Circuit denied defendants’ petition for rehearing on September 16, 2025, but defendants may still seek to appeal the decision. Maiden believes it has procedural and substantive defenses to the asserted claims, and it intends to oppose and defend against these claims.On December 26, 2024, WUSO Holding Corporation and 683 Capital Partners filed a lawsuit against Maiden Holdings North America, Ltd. and Maiden Holdings in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned WUSO Holding Corporation and 683 Capital Partners, LP v. Maiden Holdings North America, Ltd. and Maiden Holdings, Ltd., Index No. 659861/2024. The complaint alleges that Maiden’s sale of Maiden Reinsurance North America, Inc., which closed approximately six years ago from the date of the complaint, breached a sole provision of Maiden’s indenture governing its 2013 Senior Notes. Plaintiffs allege that principal and interest payable under the 2013 Senior Notes are due currently, rather than upon the stated maturity date of the 2013 Senior Notes. On June 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, considered and granted Maiden’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On August 6, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, triggering a six month deadline to perfect their appeal in the First Judicial Department of the New York Appellate Division. To the extent that plaintiffs do perfect and pursue their appeal of this decision, Maiden will oppose any such action. In addition to filing the notice of appeal, on August 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed a separate complaint against Maiden in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. In the new complaint, plaintiffs allege that they have standing and authorization to bring suit, contending that they satisfied the no-action clause in the indenture because,