Company: AFRM
Filing Date: 2025-04-25
Form Type: PRE 14A
Source: 0001820953-25-000040
Chunk: 10

Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-04-25
Form: PRE 14A
Chunk 10
---
 officers may consider the interests of other constituencies in a manner different from what Delaware law may require.

An important area in which the law in Nevada differs in some respects from that of Delaware relates to anti-takeover protections. Both Delaware and Nevada permit a range of anti-takeover defenses, including poison pills. Both have prohibitions on business combinations with “interested stockholders” owning certain proportions of the outstanding shares, though they apply at different ownership thresholds and have differing moratorium periods: 15% of the voting power of the outstanding voting stock for three years in Delaware and 10% of the voting or investment power of the outstanding voting stock for up to four years in Nevada. Both allow for classified boards of directors, though there are different default standards for director removal: in Delaware, unless the certificate of incorporation provides otherwise, directors on a classified board may only be removed for cause and by the holders of at least a majority of the voting power of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at an election of directors, and in Nevada, there is no distinction between removals for cause and removals without cause (unless specified in the articles of incorporation), and a two-thirds vote is generally required to remove any director. Another potential area of difference involves cash-out merger transactions (i.e., when one company buys another company and pays the stockholders of the acquired company in cash) and directors’ obligations: in such transactions and in general, the NRS allows directors to consider all relevant facts, circumstances, contingencies or constituencies, which may include the short-term and long-term interests of stockholders, but which may also include the interests of stakeholders other than stockholders. Delaware law, at least in certain circumstances, requires directors to accept the highest price reasonably available, although in many circumstances they are allowed, as directors of a Nevada corporation would be, to reject a potential transaction and consider the long-term interests of the corporation and its stockholders.

Finally, there are various important common law doctrines under Delaware law that have not been adopted by Nevada courts or adopted in the Nevada statutes.

<div align='center'>4</div>

TABLE OF CONTENTS

#### Transaction Costs and Litigation Risk
We have incurred and will incur certain non-recurring costs in connection with the Nevada Reincorporation, including certain filing fees and legal and other transaction costs. As noted above, we may face legal challenges in connection with the Nevada Reincorporation, and we may also face additional media scrutiny. We believe a majority of these costs have already been incurred or will