Company: AHL
Filing Date: 2025-04-29
Form Type: F-1/A
Source: 0001628280-25-020463
Chunk: 67

Company: ASPEN INSURANCE HOLDINGS LTD
Filing Date: 2025-04-29
Form: F-1/A
Chunk 67
---
eding companies and brokers that place such business move to other reinsurers with higher ratings and therefore such downgrade may materially and adversely impact our business, operating results, liquidity and financial flexibility.

In addition, a downgrade of the financial strength rating of Aspen UK, Aspen Bermuda, AAIC or Aspen Specialty by A.M. Best below “B++” would constitute an event of default under one or more of our financing facilities. Additionally, the cost and availability of unsecured financing are generally dependent on the borrower’s long-term and short-term debt ratings. A lower rating may lead to higher borrowing costs, thereby adversely impacting our liquidity and financial flexibility and by extension our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Increasing scrutiny and evolving expectations from investors, customers, regulators, policymakers and other stakeholders regarding environmental, social and governance matters may adversely affect our reputation or otherwise adversely impact our business and results of operations.

ESG encompasses a wide range of issues, including climate change and other environmental and social risks, and failure to communicate a clear strategy to manage these risks and/or lacking progress on the implementation of a comprehensive climate risk management framework may pose reputational or litigation risks. Internal and external stakeholders, including regulators and investors, have placed increased and rapidly evolving importance on how we are addressing ESG issues. Reputational risks develop through the insurance coverage provided, or not provided, to policyholders that conduct business activities with negative impacts on the climate or from investments held in certain industries, or via Aspen’s operations and internal programs, directly or via third parties that provide services for us. Regulators and lawmakers have adopted and may continue to adopt ESG-related laws, rules and guidance, which may conflict with one another and impose additional costs and operational burdens on us. A lack of harmonization globally and within jurisdictions in relation to ESG legal and regulatory reform leads to a risk of

<div align='center'>45</div>

fragmentation in group level priorities as a result of the different pace and type of sustainability transition across global jurisdictions. This may create conflicts across our global business which could risk inhibiting our future implementation of, and compliance with, rapidly developing ESG standards and requirements, and potentially pose litigation, investigation and/or reputational risks. While we have procedures to monitor regulatory change, it is not possible to predict the impact of such regulatory or legislative changes, and such changes may affect the way we conduct our business and manage our capital and risk profile, which in turn could affect our results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. If we are unable to meet targets, standards