Enstar Group LTD - Annual Report: 2011 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

or

Commission File Number 001-33289

ENSTAR GROUP LIMITED

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

P.O. Box HM 2267

Windsor Place, 3rd Floor, 18 Queen Street

Hamilton HM JX

Bermuda

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (441) 292-3645

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  þ        No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨        No  þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  þ        No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  þ        No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨        No   þ

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates, computed by reference to the closing price as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, June 30, 2011, was approximately $762,470,217.

As of February 22, 2012, the registrant had outstanding 13,854,447 voting ordinary shares and 2,725,637 non-voting convertible ordinary shares, each par value $1.00 per share.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A relating to its 2012 annual general meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

2

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1.    BUSINESS

Company Overview

Enstar Group Limited, or Enstar, was formed in August 2001 under the laws of Bermuda to acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to the insurance and reinsurance industry. Since our formation, we have acquired 35 insurance and reinsurance companies and 17 portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business and are now administering those businesses in run-off. Of the 17 portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business, 10 were Reinsurance to Close, or “RITC” transactions, with Lloyd’s of London insurance and reinsurance syndicates in run-off, whereby the portfolio of run-off liabilities is transferred from one Lloyd’s syndicate to another. Insurance and reinsurance companies and portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business we acquire that are in run-off no longer underwrite new policies. We derive our net earnings from the ownership and management of these companies and portfolios of business in run-off primarily by settling insurance and reinsurance claims below the acquired value of loss reserves and from returns on the portfolio of investments retained to pay future claims. In addition, we provide management and consultancy services, claims inspection services and reinsurance collection services to our affiliates and third-party clients for both fixed and success-based fees.

Our primary corporate objective is to grow our net book value per share. We believe growth in our net book value is driven primarily by growth in our net earnings, which is in turn partially driven by successfully completing new acquisitions.

We evaluate each acquisition opportunity presented by carefully reviewing the portfolio’s risk exposures, claim practices, reserve requirements and outstanding claims, and may seek an appropriate discount and/or seller indemnification to reflect the uncertainty contained in the portfolio’s reserves. Based on this initial analysis, we can determine if a company or portfolio of business would add value to our current portfolio of run-off business. If we determine to pursue the purchase of a company in run-off, we then proceed to price the acquisition in a manner we believe will result in positive operating results based on certain assumptions including, without limitation, our ability to favorably resolve claims, negotiate with direct insureds and reinsurers, and otherwise manage the nature of the risks posed by the business.

At the time we acquire a company in run-off, we estimate the fair value of liabilities acquired based on external actuarial advice, as well as our own views of the exposures assumed. While we earn a larger share of our total return on an acquisition from commuting the liabilities that we have assumed, we also try to maximize reinsurance recoveries on the assumed portfolio of business.

In the primary (or direct) insurance business, the insurer assumes risk of loss from persons or organizations that are directly subject to the given risks. Such risks may relate to property, casualty, life, accident, health, financial or other perils that may arise from an insurable event. In the reinsurance business, the reinsurer agrees to indemnify an insurance or reinsurance company, referred to as the ceding company, against all or a portion of the insurance risks arising under the policies the ceding company has written or reinsured. When an insurer or reinsurer stops writing new insurance business, either entirely or with respect to a particular line of business, the insurer, reinsurer, or the line of discontinued business is in run-off.

In recent years, the insurance industry has experienced significant consolidation. As a result of this consolidation and other factors, the remaining participants in the industry often have portfolios of business that are either inconsistent with their core competency or provide excessive exposure to a particular risk or segment of the market (i.e. property/casualty, asbestos, environmental, director and officer liability, etc.). These non-core and/or discontinued portfolios are often associated with potentially large exposures and lengthy time periods before resolution of the last remaining insured claims resulting in significant uncertainty to the insurer or

3

Table of Contents

reinsurer covering those risks. These factors can distract management, drive up the cost of capital and surplus for the insurer or reinsurer, and negatively impact the insurer’s or reinsurer’s credit rating, which makes the disposal of the unwanted company or portfolio an attractive option. Alternatively, the insurer may wish to maintain the business on its balance sheet, yet not divert significant management attention to the run-off of the portfolio. The insurer or reinsurer, in either case, is likely to engage a third party, such as us, that specializes in run-off management to purchase the company or portfolio, or to manage the company or portfolio in run-off.

In the sale of a run-off company, a purchaser, such as us, may pay a discount to the book value of the company based on the risks assumed and the relative value to the seller of no longer having to manage the company in run-off. Such a transaction can be beneficial to the seller because it receives an up-front payment for the company, eliminates the need for its management to devote any attention to the disposed company and removes the risk that the established reserves related to the run-off business may prove to be inadequate. The seller is also able to redeploy its management and financial resources to its core businesses.

In some situations an insurer or reinsurer may wish to divest itself of a portfolio of non-core legacy business that may have been underwritten alongside other ongoing core business that the insurer or reinsurer does not want to dispose of and so cannot sell the non-core business. In such instances we are able to provide economic finality for the insurer or reinsurer by providing a retroactive loss portfolio reinsurance contract to protect the insurer or reinsurer against deterioration of the subject portfolio of loss reserves.

Alternatively, if the insurer or reinsurer hires a third party, such as us, to manage its run-off business, the insurer or reinsurer will, unlike in a sale of the business, receive little or no cash up front. Instead, the management arrangement may provide that the insurer or reinsurer will retain the profits, if any, derived from the run-off with certain incentive payments allocated to the run-off manager. By hiring a run-off manager, the insurer or reinsurer can outsource the management of the run-off business to experienced and capable individuals, while allowing its own management team to focus on the insurer’s or reinsurer’s core businesses. Our preferred approach to managing run-off business is to align our interests with the interests of the owners through both fixed management fees and certain incentive payments. Under certain management arrangements to which we are a party, however, we receive only a fixed management fee and do not receive any incentive payments.

Following the purchase of a run-off company, or acquisition of a portfolio of business in run-off, or a new consulting engagement to manage a run-off company or portfolio of business, it is incumbent on the new owner or manager to conduct the run-off in a disciplined and professional manner in order to efficiently discharge the liabilities associated with the business while preserving and maximizing its assets. Our approach to managing our acquired companies in run-off, as well as run-off companies or portfolios of businesses on behalf of third-party clients, includes negotiating with third-party insureds and reinsureds to commute their insurance or reinsurance agreement (sometimes called policy buy-backs) for an agreed upon up-front payment by us, or the third-party client, and to more efficiently manage payment of insurance and reinsurance claims. We attempt to commute policies with direct insureds or reinsureds in order to eliminate uncertainty over the amount of future claims. Commutations and policy buy-backs provide an opportunity for the company to exit exposures to certain policies and insureds generally at a discount to the ultimate liability and provide the ability to eliminate exposure to further losses. Such a strategy also contributes to the reduction in the length of time and future cost of the run-off.

Following the acquisition of a company in run-off, or acquisition of a portfolio of business in run-off, or new consulting engagement, we will spend time analyzing the acquired exposures and reinsurance receivables on a policyholder-by-policyholder basis. This analysis enables us to identify those policyholders and reinsurers we wish to approach to discuss commutation or policy buy-back. Furthermore, following the acquisition of a company or portfolio of business in run-off, or new consulting engagement, we will often be approached by policyholders or reinsurers requesting commutation or policy buy-back. In these instances we will also carry out a full analysis of the underlying exposures in order to determine the viability of a proposed commutation or policy buy-back. From the initial analysis of the underlying exposures it may take several months, or even years, before a commutation or policy buy-back is completed. In a number of cases, if we and the policyholder or

4

Table of Contents

reinsurer are unable to reach a commercially acceptable settlement, the commutation or policy buy-back may not be achievable, in which case we will continue to settle valid claims from the policyholder, or collect reinsurance receivables from the reinsurer, as they become due.

Insureds and reinsureds are often willing to commute with us, subject to receiving an acceptable settlement, as this provides certainty of recovery of what otherwise may be claims that are disputed in the future, and often provides a meaningful up-front cash receipt that, with the associated investment income, can provide funds to meet future claim payments or even commutation of their underlying exposure. Therefore, subject to negotiating an acceptable settlement, all of our insurance and reinsurance liabilities and reinsurance receivables are able to be either commuted or settled by way of policy buy-back over time. Many sellers of companies that we acquire have secure claims paying ratings and ongoing underwriting relationships with insureds and reinsureds, which often hinders their ability to commute the underlying insurance or reinsurance policies. Our lack of claims paying rating and our lack of potential conflicts with insureds and reinsureds of companies we acquire provides a greater ability to commute the newly acquired policies than that of the sellers.

We also attempt, where appropriate, to negotiate favorable commutations with reinsurers by securing the receipt of a lump-sum settlement from the reinsurer in complete satisfaction of the reinsurer’s liability in respect of any future claims under a particular reinsurance contract. We, or the third-party client, are then fully responsible for any claims in the future. We typically invest proceeds from reinsurance commutations with the expectation that such investments will produce income, which, together with the principal, will be sufficient to satisfy future obligations with respect to the acquired company or portfolio.

Strategy

We aim to maximize our growth in net book value per share by using the following strategies:

5

Table of Contents

Recent Transactions

Insurance Australia Group

On September 20, 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Gordian Run-off Limited, or Gordian, acquired an inwards reinsurance portfolio from Insurance Australia Group Limited via an Australian Federal Court approved scheme. Gordian received total assets and assumed total net reinsurance liabilities of approximately $9.7 million Australian dollars (approximately $10.0 million).

Claremont Novation Agreement

On September 1, 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Fitzwilliam Insurance Limited, or Fitzwilliam, entered into a novation agreement with another of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Claremont Liability Insurance Company, or Claremont, and certain of its reinsurers with respect to three specific quota share contracts. Under the novation agreement, Fitzwilliam replaced those companies as reinsurer of Claremont on the quota share contracts in exchange for total assets and liabilities of approximately $22.5 million.

Clarendon

On July 12, 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Clarendon Holdings, Inc., completed the acquisition of 100% of the shares of Clarendon National Insurance Company, or Clarendon, from Clarendon Insurance Group, Inc., an affiliate of Hannover Re, or Hannover. Clarendon is a New Jersey-domiciled insurer that is in run-off. Clarendon owns three other insurers, two domiciled in New Jersey and one domiciled in Florida, that are also in run-off. The purchase price was $219.1 million and was financed in part by borrowing $106.5 million under a four-year term loan facility, or the Clarendon Facility, provided by National Australia Bank Limited, or NAB, and the remainder from available cash on hand.

In addition, on July 12, 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Fitzwilliam, in connection with the acquisition of Clarendon, entered into a reinsurance agreement with Hannover, which provides adverse development cover, or ADC, to Clarendon to reinsure Hannover for the first $80.0 million of the ADC. We provided a parental guarantee to Hannover in the amount of $80.0 million supporting the obligations of Fitzwilliam.

6

Table of Contents

Laguna

On March 25, 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Kenmare Holdings Ltd., or Kenmare, completed the acquisition of Laguna Life Limited, formerly known as CitiLife Financial Limited, or Laguna, from Citigroup Insurance Holding Corporation, or Citigroup, an affiliate of Citigroup Inc. Laguna is an Ireland-based life insurer that is in run-off. The purchase price was €15.0 million (approximately $21.2 million) and was funded from available cash on hand. The previously disclosed purchase price of €30.0 million (approximately $42.4 million) was reduced, prior to completion of the acquisition, after Citigroup received approval from Laguna’s regulator to distribute €15.0 million (approximately $21.2 million) to its shareholders.

Claremont Acquisition

On December 31, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, CLIC Holdings, Inc., completed the acquisition of Claremont for an aggregate purchase price of $13.9 million. Claremont is a California-domiciled insurer that is in run-off. The acquisition was funded from available cash on hand.

CIGNA Reinsurance

On December 31, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary Fitzwilliam, entered into a 100% reinsurance agreement, administrative services agreement, and related transaction documents with three affiliates of CIGNA Corporation, or CIGNA affiliates, pursuant to which Fitzwilliam reinsured all of the run-off workers compensation and personal accident reinsurance business of those CIGNA affiliates. Pursuant to the transaction documents, the CIGNA affiliates have transferred assets into three reinsurance collateral trusts securing the obligations of Fitzwilliam under the reinsurance agreement and administrative services agreement. Fitzwilliam received total assets and assumed total net reinsurance reserves of approximately $190.5 million. Fitzwilliam transferred approximately $50 million of additional funds to the trusts to further support these obligations. We funded the contribution to the trusts through a draw on a $115.0 million credit facility entered into with Barclays Bank PLC on December 29, 2010, which was fully repaid on June 30, 2011.

In addition to the trusts, we have provided a limited parental guarantee supporting certain obligations of Fitzwilliam in the amount of $79.7 million. The amount of the guarantee will increase or decrease over time under certain circumstances, but will always be subject to an overall maximum cap with respect to reinsurance liabilities. As of December 31, 2011 the amount of the parental guarantee was $79.7 million.

Inter-Hannover

On October 1, 2011, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Brampton Insurance Company Limited, or Brampton, completed the portfolio transfer of certain run-off agency business from International Insurance Company of Hannover, or IICH, under part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The transferring business was previously reinsured by our wholly-owned subsidiary, Fitzwilliam, pursuant to a 100% quota share reinsurance agreement with IICH entered into on December 3, 2010. Fitzwilliam had received total assets and assumed total net reinsurance reserves of approximately $137.1 million from IICH. In addition, we provided a parental guarantee supporting Fitzwilliam’s obligations in the amount of approximately £76.0 million (approximately $118.7 million). The amount of the guarantee will decrease over time in line with relevant independent actuarial assessments. This 100% quota share reinsurance, along with the associated guarantee, was novated in favor of Brampton as part of the portfolio transfer from IICH. As of December 31, 2011, the total amount of the parental guarantee was approximately £31.2 million (approximately $48.5 million).

New Castle

On December 3, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary Kenmare, completed the acquisition of New Castle Reinsurance Company Ltd., or New Castle, for an aggregate purchase price of $22.0 million. New Castle is a Bermuda-domiciled insurer that is in run-off. The acquisition was funded from available cash on hand.

7

Table of Contents

Brampton

On November 2, 2010, we acquired the 49.9% of the shares of Hillcot Holdings Ltd., or Hillcot, from Shinsei Bank Ltd., or Shinsei, that we did not previously own for a purchase price of $38.0 million, resulting in us owning 100% of Hillcot. At the time of acquisition, Hillcot owned 100% of the shares of Brampton, a London-domicilied insurer that is in run-off. The fair value of the assets acquired that we did not previously own was $34.9 million. The excess of the purchase price over the fair value of assets acquired in the amount of $3.1 million was recorded as a charge to additional paid-in capital in accordance with the applicable guidance of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or U.S. GAAP. J. Christopher Flowers, a former member of our board of directors and one of our largest shareholders, is a director and the largest shareholder of Shinsei.

Seaton

On August 3, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Virginia Holdings Ltd., or Virginia, acquired 55.6% of the shares of Seaton Insurance Company, or Seaton, for a $nil purchase price. Seaton is a Rhode Island-domiciled insurer that is in run-off and, at that time, was the subsidiary of Stonewall Acquisition Corporation, or Stonewall. At that time, Virginia held 44.4% of the outstanding capital stock of Stonewall and, therefore, indirectly owned 44.4% of Seaton through its holdings. The acquisition of the 55.6% of the Seaton shares that it previously did not own was a result of the distribution by Stonewall to Virginia of proceeds and certain other assets following its sale of another subsidiary, Stonewall Insurance Company, to Columbia Insurance Company, an affiliate of National Indemnity Company (an indirect subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.). The distribution resulted in Virginia owning 100% of Seaton following the distribution.

Providence Washington

On July 20, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary PWAC Holdings, Inc., completed the acquisition of PW Acquisition Company, or PWAC, for a purchase price of $25.0 million. PWAC owns the entire share capital of Providence Washington Insurance Company. Providence Washington Insurance Company and its two subsidiaries are Rhode Island-domiciled insurers that are in run-off. The purchase price was financed by a term facility provided by a London-based bank, or the EGL Facility, which was fully repaid on September 13, 2010.

Torus Reinsurance

In July 2010, following the acquisition of the entire issued share capital of Glacier Insurance AG by Torus Insurance (Bermuda) Limited, or Torus, Fitzwilliam entered into two quota share reinsurance agreements with Torus protecting the prior year reserve development of two portfolios of business reinsured by them: a 79% quota share of Torus’ 95% quota share reinsurance of Glacier Insurance AG, and a 75% quota share of Torus’ 100% quota share reinsurance of Glacier Reinsurance AG. Fitzwilliam received total assets and assumed total gross reinsurance reserves of approximately $105.0 million.

Bosworth

In May 2010, a specific portfolio of business in run-off underwritten by Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co., Ltd. of Japan, or Mitsui, was transferred to our 50.1% owned subsidiary, Bosworth Run-off Limited, or Bosworth. This transfer, which occurred under Part VII of the U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, was approved by the U.K. Court and took effect on May 31, 2010. As a result of the transfer, Bosworth received total assets and assumed net reinsurance reserves of approximately $117.5 million. Shinsei owns the remaining 49.9% of Bosworth.

8

Table of Contents

Assuransinvest

On March 30, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Nordic Run-Off Limited, completed the acquisition of Forsakringsaktiebolaget Assuransinvest MF, or Assuransinvest, for a purchase price of SEK 78.8 million (approximately $11.0 million). Assuransinvest is a Swedish-domiciled reinsurer that is in run-off. The acquisition was funded from available cash on hand.

Knapton Insurance

On March 2, 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Knapton Holdings Limited, or Knapton Holdings, completed the acquisition of Knapton Insurance Limited, formerly British Engine Insurance Limited, or Knapton, from RSA Insurance Group plc for a total purchase price of £28.8 million (approximately $44.0 million). Knapton is a U.K.-domiciled reinsurer that is in run-off. The acquisition was funded from available cash on hand.

In April 2010, Knapton Holdings entered into a term facility agreement with a London-based bank, or the Knapton Facility. On April 20, 2010, Knapton Holdings drew down $21.4 million from the Knapton Facility. On June 30, 2011, the Knapton Facility was fully repaid.

Allianz Reinsurance

In February 2010, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Fitzwilliam, entered into a 100% quota share reinsurance agreement with Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG (UK) Branch, or Allianz, with respect to a specific portfolio of run-off business of Allianz. Fitzwilliam received total assets and assumed total gross reinsurance reserves of approximately $112.6 million.

Shelbourne RITC Transactions

In December 2007, we, in conjunction with JCF FPK I L.P., or JCF FPK, and a newly-hired executive management team, formed U.K.-based Shelbourne Group Limited, or Shelbourne, to invest in RITC transactions (the transferring of liabilities from one Lloyd’s syndicate to another) with Lloyd’s of London insurance and reinsurance syndicates in run-off. We own approximately 56.8% of Shelbourne, which in turn owns 100% of Shelbourne Syndicate Services Limited, the Managing Agency for Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008, a syndicate approved by Lloyd’s of London on December 16, 2007 to undertake RITC transactions with Lloyd’s syndicates in run-off.

JCF FPK is a joint investment program between Fox-Pitt, Kelton, Cochran, Caronia & Waller (USA) LLC, or FPK, and J.C. Flowers II L.P., or the Flowers Fund. The Flowers Fund is a private investment fund advised by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. J. Christopher Flowers, one of our largest shareholders and formerly a member of our board of directors, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. In addition, an affiliate of the Flowers Fund controlled approximately 41% of FPK until its sale of FPK in December 2009.

Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 has, to date, entered into 10 RITC agreements with Lloyd’s syndicates. During 2009, Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 entered into a RITC agreement with a Lloyd’s syndicate with total gross insurance reserves of approximately $67.0 million. During 2010, Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 entered into RITC agreements with three Lloyd’s syndicates with total gross insurance reserves of approximately $192.6 million. In February 2011, Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008 entered into RITC agreements with two Lloyd’s syndicates with total gross insurance reserves of approximately $129.6 million. The capital commitment to Lloyd’s Syndicate 2008, required to be in place by February 29, 2012, amounted to £62.9 million (approximately $97.7 million) and will be financed from available cash on hand.

9

Table of Contents

Copenhagen Re

On October 15, 2009, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Marlon Insurance Company Limited, completed the acquisition of Copenhagen Reinsurance Company Ltd., or Copenhagen Re, from Alm. Brand Forsikring A/S for a total purchase price, including acquisition costs, of DKK149.2 million (approximately $29.9 million). Copenhagen Re is a Danish-domiciled reinsurer that is in run-off. The acquisition was funded from available cash on hand.

Constellation

On January 31, 2009, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary, Sun Gulf Holdings Inc., completed the acquisition of all of the outstanding capital stock of Constellation Reinsurance Company Limited, or Constellation, for a total purchase price of approximately $2.5 million. Constellation is a New York-domiciled reinsurer that is in run-off. The acquisition was funded from available cash on hand.

Private Placement

On April 20, 2011, we entered into an Investment Agreement, or the Investment Agreement, with GSCP VI AIV Navi, Ltd., GSCP VI Offshore Navi, Ltd., GSCP VI Parallel AIV Navi, Ltd., GSCP VI Employee Navi, Ltd., and GSCP VI GmbH Navi, L.P., or, collectively, the Purchasers, each of which is an affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co. Under the Investment Agreement, we agreed to issue and sell, and the Purchasers agreed to purchase, at several different closings described below, securities representing 19.9% of our outstanding share capital pro forma for all the issuances, with the right to acquire an additional 2.0% on a fully diluted basis pro forma for all the issuances through the exercise of warrants as described below, although the Purchasers’ voting interest in us purchased pursuant to the Investment Agreement is less than 4.9%. The securities that the Purchasers have acquired can be further summarized as follows.

At the first closing, which occurred on April 20, 2011, we issued to the Purchasers 531,345 of our voting ordinary shares, par value $1.00 per share, or the Voting Common Shares, and 749,869 of our Series A convertible non-voting preference shares, par value $1.00 per share, or the Non-Voting Preferred Shares, at a purchase price of $86.00 per share, and warrants to acquire 340,820 Non-Voting Preferred Shares for an exercise price of $115.00 per share, for aggregate proceeds of approximately $110.2 million. Upon the receipt of shareholder approval to create three new classes of non-voting ordinary shares at our Annual General Meeting on June 28, 2011, or the Shareholder Approval, the Non-Voting Preferred Shares automatically converted on a share-for-share basis into our non-voting ordinary shares, par value $1.00, or the Non-Voting Common Shares, and the warrants became exercisable for Non-Voting Common Shares rather than Non-Voting Preferred Shares.

At the second closing, which occurred on December 22, 2011, we issued to the Purchasers 134,184 Voting Common Shares and 827,504 Non-Voting Common Shares, at a purchase price of $86.00 per share, for aggregate proceeds of approximately $82.7 million.

At the third closing, which occurred simultaneously with the second closing on December 22, 2011, we issued to the Purchasers 1,148,264 Non-Voting Common Shares, at a purchase price of $86.00 per share, for aggregate proceeds of approximately $98.7 million.

The Purchasers may elect to receive Series B Non-Voting Common Shares, Series C Non-Voting Common Shares or Series D Non-Voting Common Shares upon conversion of Voting Common Shares held by them. Holders of the Series B Non-Voting Common Shares would have the right to convert such shares on a share-for-share basis, subject to certain adjustments, into Voting Common Shares, Series C Non-Voting Common Shares or Series D Non-Voting Common Shares at their option. All Non-Voting Common Shares received by the Purchasers under the Investment Agreement are Series C Non-Voting Common Shares. Holders of the Series C Non-Voting Common Shares have the right to convert such shares, on a share-for-share basis, subject to certain adjustments, into Series D Non-Voting Common Shares at their option. There is no economic difference in the sub-series of Non-Voting Common Shares, but there are slight differences in the limited voting rights of each sub-series that are designed to address certain regulatory matters affecting the Purchasers.

10

Table of Contents

The total investment made by the Purchasers for the purchase of the Voting Common Shares, the Non-Voting Common Shares and the warrants was approximately $291.6 million.

Share Repurchase

On October 1, 2010, we entered into share repurchase agreements, or the Repurchase Agreements, with three of our executives and certain trusts and a corporation affiliated with the executives to repurchase an aggregate of 800,000 of our ordinary shares at a price of $70.00 per share. We repurchased an aggregate of 600,000 ordinary shares from Dominic F. Silvester (our Chief Executive Officer and member of our board of directors) and a trust of which he and his immediate family are the sole beneficiaries, 100,000 ordinary shares from a trust of which Paul J. O’Shea (our Joint Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President and a member of our board of directors) and his immediate family are the sole beneficiaries and 100,000 ordinary shares from a corporation owned by a trust of which Nicholas A. Packer (our Joint Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President) and his immediate family are the sole beneficiaries. The repurchase transactions closed on October 14, 2010. The aggregate purchase price of $56.0 million is payable by us through promissory notes to the selling shareholders. The annual interest rate for the notes is fixed at 3.5%, and the notes are repayable in three equal installments on December 31, 2010, December 1, 2011 and December 1, 2012. In connection with the Repurchase Agreements, we entered into lock-up agreements with each of Messrs. Silvester, O’Shea and Packer, and their respective family trusts and corporation. The lock-up agreements prohibit future sales and transfers of shares now owned or subsequently acquired for two years from the date of the Repurchase Agreements.

Management of Run-Off Portfolios

We are a party to several management engagements pursuant to which we have agreed to manage the run-off portfolios of third parties with gross loss reserves, as of December 31, 2011 of approximately $546.9 million. Such arrangements are advantageous for third-party insurers because they allow a third-party insurer to focus its management efforts on its core competency while allowing it to maintain the portfolio of business on its balance sheet. In addition, our expertise in managing portfolios in run-off allows the third-party insurer the opportunity to potentially realize positive operating results if we achieve our objectives in management of the run-off portfolio. We specialize in the collection of reinsurance receivables through our subsidiary Kinsale Brokers Limited. Through our subsidiaries, Enstar (US) Inc. and Cranmore Adjusters Limited, we also specialize in providing claims inspection services whereby we are engaged by third-party insurance and reinsurance providers to review certain of their existing insurance and reinsurance exposures, relationships, policies and/or claims history.

Our primary objective in structuring our management arrangements is to align the third-party insurer’s interests with our interests. Consequently, management agreements typically are structured so that we receive fixed fees in connection with the management of the run-off portfolio and certain incentive payments based on a portfolio’s positive operating results. These agreements do not include the recurring engagements managed by our claims inspection and reinsurance collection subsidiaries, Cranmore Adjusters Limited, Enstar (US), Inc. and Kinsale Brokers Limited, respectively.

Claims Management and Administration

An integral factor to our success is our ability to analyze, administer, manage and settle claims and related expenses, such as loss adjustment expenses. Our claims teams are located in different offices within our organization and provide global claims support. We have implemented effective claims handling guidelines along with claims reporting and control procedures in all of our claims units. To ensure that claims are appropriately handled and reported in accordance with these guidelines, all claims matters are reviewed regularly, with all material claims matters being circulated to and authorized by management prior to any action being taken.

11

Table of Contents

When we receive notice of a claim, regardless of size and regardless of whether it is a paid claim request or a reserve advice, it is reviewed and recorded within the claims system, reserving our rights where appropriate. Claims reserve movements and payments are reviewed daily, with any material movements being reported to management for review. This enables “flash reporting” of significant events and potential insurance or reinsurance losses to be communicated to senior management worldwide on a timely basis irrespective from which geographical location or business unit location the exposure arises.

We are also able to efficiently manage claims and obtain savings through our extensive relationships with defense counsel (both in-house and external), third-party claims administrators and other professional advisors and experts. We have developed relationships and protocols to reduce the number of outside counsel by consolidating claims of similar types and complexity with experienced law firms specializing in the particular type of claim. This approach has enabled us to more efficiently manage outside counsel and other third parties, thereby reducing expenses, and to establish closer relationships with ceding companies.

When appropriate, we negotiate with direct insureds to commute or buy back policies either on favorable terms or to mitigate against existing and/or potential future indemnity exposures and legal costs in an uncertain and constantly evolving legal environment. We also pursue commutations on favorable terms with ceding companies of reinsurance business in order to realize savings or to mitigate against potential future indemnity exposures and legal costs. Such buy-backs and commutations typically eliminate all past, present and future liability to direct insureds and reinsureds in return for a lump sum payment.

With regard to reinsurance receivables, we manage cash flow by working with reinsurers, brokers and professional advisors to achieve fair and prompt payment of reinsured claims, taking appropriate legal action to secure receivables where necessary. We also attempt where appropriate to negotiate favorable commutations with our reinsurers by securing a lump sum settlement from reinsurers in complete satisfaction of the reinsurer’s past, present and future liability in respect of such claims. Properly priced commutations reduce the expense of adjusting direct claims and pursuing collection of reinsurance receivables (both of which may often involve extensive legal expense), realize savings, remove the potential future volatility of claims and reduce required regulatory capital.

Reserves for Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expense

Applicable insurance laws and regulations and generally accepted accounting practices require us to maintain reserves to cover our estimated losses under insurance policies that we have assumed and for loss adjustment expenses, or LAE, relating to the investigation, administration and settlement of policy claims. Our LAE reserves consist of both reserves for allocated loss adjustment expenses, or ALAE, and for unallocated loss adjustment expenses, or ULAE. ALAE are linked to the settlement of an individual claim or loss, whereas ULAE are based on our estimates of future costs to administer the claims.

We and our subsidiaries establish losses and LAE reserves for individual claims by evaluating reported claims on the basis of:

Because a significant amount of time can lapse between the assumption of risk, the occurrence of a loss event, the reporting of the event to an insurance or reinsurance company and the ultimate payment of the claim on the loss event, the liability for unpaid losses and LAE is based largely upon estimates. Our management must

12

Table of Contents

use considerable judgment in the process of developing these estimates. The liability for unpaid losses and LAE for property and casualty business includes amounts determined from loss reports on individual cases and amounts for losses incurred but not reported, or IBNR. Such reserves, including IBNR reserves, are estimated by management based upon loss reports received from ceding companies, supplemented by our own estimates of losses for which no ceding company loss reports have yet been received.

In establishing reserves, management also considers actuarial estimates of ultimate losses. Our independent actuaries employ generally accepted actuarial methodologies and procedures to estimate ultimate losses and loss adjustment expenses. Our loss reserves are largely related to casualty exposures including latent exposures primarily relating to asbestos and environmental, or A&E, as discussed below. In establishing the reserves for unpaid claims, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for known claims (including the cost of related litigation) when sufficient information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably estimate its liability. In addition, reserves are established to cover loss development related to both known and unasserted claims.

The estimation of unpaid claim liabilities is subject to a high degree of uncertainty for a number of reasons. Unpaid claim liabilities for property and casualty exposures in general are impacted by changes in the legal environment, jury awards, medical cost trends and general inflation. Moreover, for latent exposures in particular, developed case law and adequate claims history do not exist. There is significant coverage litigation involved with these exposures which creates further uncertainty in the estimation of the liabilities. Therefore, for these types of exposures, it is especially unclear whether past claim experience will be representative of future claim experience. Ultimate values for such claims cannot be estimated using reserving techniques that extrapolate losses to an ultimate basis using loss development factors, and the uncertainties surrounding the estimation of unpaid claim liabilities are not likely to be resolved in the near future. There can be no assurance that the reserves established by us will be adequate or will not be adversely affected by the development of other latent exposures. The actuarial methods used to estimate ultimate loss and ALAE for our latent exposures are discussed in detail in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Critical Accounting Policies”.

For the non-latent loss exposures, a range of traditional loss development extrapolation techniques is applied. Incremental paid and incurred loss development methodologies are the most commonly used methods. Traditional cumulative paid and incurred loss development methods are used where inception-to-date, cumulative paid and reported incurred loss development history is available. These methods assume that groups of losses from similar exposures will increase over time in a predictable manner. Historical paid and incurred loss development experience is examined for earlier underwriting years to make inferences about how later underwriting years’ losses will develop. Where company-specific loss information is not available or not reliable, industry loss development information published by reliable industry sources such as the Reinsurance Association of America is considered. The actuarial methods used to estimate ultimate loss and ALAE for our non-latent exposures are discussed in detail in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Critical Accounting Policies”.

The reserving process is intended to reflect the impact of inflation and other factors affecting loss payments by taking into account changes in historical payment patterns and perceived trends. However, there is no precise method for the subsequent evaluation of the adequacy of the consideration given to inflation, or to any other specific factor, or to the way one factor may affect another.

The loss development tables below show changes in our gross and net loss reserves in subsequent years from the prior loss estimates based on experience as of the end of each succeeding year. The estimate is increased or decreased as more information becomes known about the frequency and severity of losses for individual years. A redundancy means the original estimate was higher than the current estimate; a deficiency means that the current estimate is higher than the original estimate. The “Reserve redundancy” line represents, as of the date indicated, the difference between the latest re-estimated liability and the reserves as originally estimated.

13

Table of Contents

14

Table of Contents

The following table provides a reconciliation of the liability for losses and LAE, net of reinsurance ceded:

In the table above, net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities represents changes in estimates of prior period net loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities comprising net incurred loss movements during a period and changes in estimates of net IBNR liabilities. Net incurred loss movements during a period comprise increases or reductions in specific case reserves advised during the period to us by our policyholders and attorneys, or by us to our reinsurers, less claims settlements made during the period by us to our policyholders, plus claim receipts made to us by our reinsurers. Prior period estimates of net IBNR liabilities may change as our management considers the combined impact of commutations, policy buy-backs, settlement of losses on carried reserves and the trend of incurred loss development compared to prior forecasts. The trend of incurred loss development in any period comprises the movement in net case reserves less net claims settled during the period. See “— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies — Loss and Loss Adjustment Expenses” on page 69 for an explanation of how the loss reserving methodologies are applied to the movement, or development, of net incurred losses during a period to estimate IBNR liabilities.

Commutations provide an opportunity for us to exit exposures to entire policies with insureds and reinsureds, often at a discount to the previously estimated ultimate liability. Commutations are beneficial to us as they extinguish liabilities and reduce the potential for future adverse loss development. All prior historical loss development that relates to commuted exposures is eliminated to produce revised historical loss development for the remaining non-commuted exposures. Our independent actuaries apply their actuarial methodologies to the remaining aggregate exposures and revised historical loss development information to reassess their estimates of ultimate liabilities, and, after management’s review of and, if necessary, adjustments to those estimates, we reassess our estimate of IBNR reserves. Because the majority of commutation activity takes place during the fourth quarter, the focus of our actuarial evaluation of ultimate liabilities also occurs in the fourth quarter.

Policy buy-backs provide an opportunity for us to settle individual policies and losses usually at a discount to carried advised loss reserves. As part of our routine claims settlement operations, claims will settle at either below or above the carried advised loss reserve. The impact of policy buy-backs and the routine settlement of claims updates historical loss development information to which actuarial methodologies are applied often resulting in revised estimates of ultimate liabilities. Our actuarial methodologies include industry benchmarking which, under certain methodologies (discussed further under “— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies” on page 67), compares the trend of our loss development to that of the industry. To the extent that the trend of our loss development compared to the industry changes in any period, it is likely to have an impact on the estimate of ultimate liabilities.

15

Table of Contents

Year Ended December 31, 2011

The net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2011 was $295.4 million, excluding the impact of foreign exchange rate movements of $9.2 million and including both net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $17.5 million relating to companies and portfolios acquired during the year and premium and commission adjustments triggered by incurred losses of $32.5 million, as well as the Claremont novation agreement settlement of $22.5 million.

The net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2011 of $295.4 million was attributable to a reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $250.2 million, a reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debts of $42.8 million and a reduction in estimates of unallocated loss adjustment expense liabilities of $45.1 million, relating to 2011 run-off activity, partially offset by the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $42.7 million.

The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $250.2 million comprised net incurred favorable loss development of $25.4 million and reductions in IBNR reserves of $224.8 million. The decrease in the aggregate estimate of IBNR loss reserves of $224.8 million (compared to $236.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2010) was comprised of $57.9 million relating to asbestos liabilities (compared to $67.8 million in 2010), $2.8 million relating to environmental liabilities (compared to $4.2 million in 2010) and $164.1 million relating to all other remaining liabilities (compared to $164.9 million in 2010). The aggregate reduction in IBNR of $224.8 million was a result of the application, on a basis consistent with the assumptions applied in the prior period, of our actuarial methodologies to revised historical loss development data, following 113 commutations (including three commutations completed shortly after December 31, 2011), to estimate loss reserves required to cover liabilities for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to non-commuted exposures. The prior period estimate of aggregate net IBNR liabilities was reduced as a result of the combined impact on all classes of business of loss development activity during 2011, including commutations and the favorable trend of loss development related to non-commuted policies compared to prior forecasts. The net incurred favorable loss development of $25.4 million, resulting from settlement of net advised case and LAE reserves of $310.0 million for net paid losses of $284.6 million, related to the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year and approximately 110 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures, excluding the three commutations completed subsequent to December 31, 2011. Net incurred liabilities settled by way of commutation during the year ended December 31, 2011 (excluding the three commutations completed subsequent to December 31, 2011) amounted to $71.5 million compared to the net reduction in advised case reserves during the same period of $310.0 million. Commutations provide an opportunity for us to exit exposures to entire policies with insureds and reinsureds at a discount to the previous estimated ultimate liability. As a result of exiting all exposures to such policies, all advised case reserves and IBNR liabilities relating to that insured or reinsured are eliminated. This often results in a net gain irrespective of whether the settlement exceeds the advised case reserves. We adopt a disciplined approach to the review and settlement of non-commuted claims through claims adjusting and the inspection of underlying policyholder records such that settlements of assumed exposures may often be achieved below the level of the originally advised loss, and settlements of ceded receivables may often be achieved at levels above carried balances. Of the 113 commutations completed, nine related to our top ten insured and/or reinsured exposures, including three completed shortly after December 31, 2011 whereby the related reduction in IBNR reserves was recorded in the reduction in net ultimate losses for the year, and two related to our top ten ceded reinsurance assets. The remaining 102 commutations, of which approximately 46% were completed during the three months ended December 31, 2011, were of a smaller size, consistent with our approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships, as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. The combination of the claims settlement activity in 2011, including commutations, and the actuarial estimation of IBNR reserves required for the remaining non-commuted exposures (which took into account the favorable trend of loss development in 2011 related to such exposures compared to prior forecasts), resulted in our management concluding that the loss development activity that occurred subsequent to the prior reporting period provided sufficient new information to warrant a reduction in IBNR reserves of $224.8 million in 2011.

16

Table of Contents

The reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debt of $42.8 million was a result of the collection, primarily during the three months ended December 31, 2011, of certain reinsurance receivables against which bad debt provisions had been provided in earlier periods.

Year Ended December 31, 2010

The net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $311.8 million, excluding the impact of foreign exchange rate movements of $3.8 million and including both net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $19.0 million relating to companies and portfolios acquired during the year and premium and commission adjustments triggered by incurred losses of $16.5 million.

The net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2010 of $311.8 million was attributable to a reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $278.1 million, a reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debts of $49.6 million and a reduction in estimates of unallocated loss adjustment expense liabilities of $39.7 million, relating to 2010 run-off activity, partially offset by the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $55.4 million.

The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $278.1 million comprised net incurred favorable loss development of $41.1 million and reductions in IBNR reserves of $236.9 million. The decrease in the aggregate estimate of IBNR loss reserves of $236.9 million (compared to $318.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2009) was comprised of $67.8 million relating to asbestos liabilities (compared to $158.4 million in 2009), $4.2 million relating to environmental liabilities (compared to $17.0 million in 2009) and $164.9 million relating to all other remaining liabilities (compared to $142.8 million in 2009). The aggregate reduction in IBNR of $236.9 million was a result of the application, on a basis consistent with the assumptions applied in the prior period, of our actuarial methodologies to revised historical loss development data following 90 commutations to estimate loss reserves required to cover liabilities for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to non-commuted exposures. The prior period estimate of aggregate net IBNR liabilities was reduced as a result of the combined impact on all classes of business of loss development activity during 2010, including commutations and the favorable trend of loss development related to non-commuted policies compared to prior forecasts. The lower reduction in asbestos IBNR reserves during 2010 was primarily due to reduced commutations of asbestos related exposures compared to the prior year. Total net loss reserves acquired from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010 amounted to $3,197.3 million, of which $2,634.5 million, or 82.4% related to all other losses. This increase in all other loss reserves provided the basis for a greater reduction in all other IBNR reserves. The net incurred favorable loss development of $41.1 million, resulting from settlement of net advised case and LAE reserves of $336.1 million for net paid losses of $295.0 million, related to the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year and approximately 90 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures. Net incurred liabilities settled by way of commutation during the year ended December 31, 2010 amounted to $109.7 million compared to the net reduction in advised case reserves during the same period of $336.1 million. Of the 90 commutations completed during 2010, three related to our top ten insured and/or reinsured exposures, including one commutation completed shortly after December 31, 2009 whereby the related reduction in IBNR reserves was recorded in the reduction in net ultimate losses for the year ended December 31, 2009, and one related to the commutation of one of our largest ceded reinsurance assets. The remaining 86 commutations, of which approximately 43% were completed during the three months ended December 31, 2010, were of a smaller size, consistent with our approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships, as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. The combination of the claims settlement activity in 2010, including commutations (but excluding the impact of the commutation that was completed subsequent to the year ended December 31, 2009) and the actuarial estimation of IBNR reserves required for the remaining non-commuted exposures (which took into account the favorable trend of loss development in 2010 related to such exposures compared to prior forecasts), resulted in our management concluding that the loss development activity that occurred subsequent to the prior reporting period provided sufficient new information to warrant a reduction in IBNR reserves of $236.9 million in 2010.

17

Table of Contents

The reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debt of $49.6 million was a result of the collection, primarily during the three months ended December 31, 2010, of certain reinsurance receivables against which bad debt provisions had been provided in earlier periods.

Year Ended December 31, 2009

The net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $259.6 million, excluding the impact of adverse foreign exchange rate movements of $73.5 million and including both net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities of $4.8 million relating to companies acquired during the year and premium and commission adjustments of $5.5 million triggered by incurred losses.

The net reduction in ultimate loss and loss adjustment expense liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2009 of $259.6 million was attributable to a reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $274.8 million, a reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debts of $11.7 million and a reduction in estimates of loss adjustment expense liabilities of $50.4 million, relating to 2009 run-off activity, partially offset by the amortization, over the estimated payout period, of fair value adjustments relating to companies acquired amounting to $77.3 million.

The reduction in estimates of net ultimate losses of $274.8 million comprised net incurred loss development of $43.3 million and reductions in IBNR reserves of $318.2 million. The decrease in the estimate of IBNR loss reserves of $318.2 million (compared to $187.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2008) was comprised of $158.4 million relating to asbestos liabilities (compared to $79.0 million in 2008), $17.0 million relating to environmental liabilities (compared to $10.8 million in 2008) and $142.8 million relating to all other remaining liabilities (compared to $98.1 million in 2008). The reduction in IBNR is a result of the application, on a basis consistent with the assumptions applied in the prior period, of our actuarial methodologies to loss data to estimate loss reserves required to cover liabilities for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses. The prior period estimate of net IBNR liabilities was reduced as a result of the combined impact of loss development activity during 2009, including commutations and the favorable trend of loss development related to non-commuted policies compared to prior forecasts. The larger reduction in asbestos IBNR reserves in 2009 was primarily due to the further commutation of asbestos reserves relating to one of our insurance entities that had benefited from a substantial stop loss protection until December 18, 2008. The larger reduction in all other IBNR reserves in 2009 was primarily due to incurred loss development in one of our entities acquired during 2008 that was in line with incurred loss development expected by our external actuaries and was, therefore, offset by a corresponding reduction in IBNR reserves, as well as the completion of a commutation by the same entity subsequent to the year-end referred to below. The net incurred loss development of $43.3 million resulting from settlement of net advised case and LAE reserves of $214.1 million for net paid losses of $257.4 million, related to the settlement of non-commuted losses in the year and approximately 79 commutations of assumed and ceded exposures. Of the 79 commutations completed during 2009, two related to our top ten insured and/or reinsured exposures. The remaining 77 were of a smaller size, consistent with our approach of targeting significant numbers of cedant and reinsurer relationships, as well as targeting significant individual cedant and reinsurer relationships. Approximately 76% of commutations completed in 2009 related to commutations completed during the three months ended December 31, 2009. Net incurred liabilities settled by way of commutation during the year ended December 31, 2009 amounted to $81.9 million compared to the net reduction in advised case reserves during the same period of $214.1 million. Subsequent to the year end, one of our insurance entities completed a commutation of another of one of our top ten reinsured exposures. The combination of the claims settlement activity in 2009, including commutations, and the actuarial estimation of IBNR reserves required for the remaining non-commuted exposures (which took into account the favorable trend of loss development in 2009 related to such exposures compared to prior forecasts as well as the impact of the commutation that was completed subsequent to the year-end), resulted in our management concluding that the loss development activity that occurred subsequent to the prior reporting period provided sufficient new information to warrant a reduction in IBNR reserves of $318.2 million in 2009.

18

Table of Contents

The reduction in aggregate provisions for bad debt of $11.7 million was a result of the collection, primarily during the three months ended March 31, 2009, of certain reinsurance receivables against which bad debt provisions had been provided in earlier periods.

Asbestos and Environmental (A&E) Exposure

General A&E Exposures

A number of our subsidiaries wrote general liability policies and reinsurance prior to their acquisition by us under which policyholders continue to present asbestos-related injury claims and claims alleging injury, damage or clean-up costs arising from environmental pollution. These policies, and the associated claims, are referred to as A&E exposures. The vast majority of these claims are presented under policies written many years ago.

There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding A&E claims. This uncertainty impacts the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate amount of unpaid claims and related LAE. The majority of these claims differ from any other type of claim because there is inadequate loss development and there is significant uncertainty regarding what, if any, coverage exists, to which, if any, policy years claims are attributable and which, if any, insurers/reinsurers may be liable. These uncertainties are exacerbated by lack of clear judicial precedent and legislative interpretations of coverage that may be inconsistent with the intent of the parties to the insurance contracts and expand theories of liability. The insurance and reinsurance industry as a whole is engaged in extensive litigation over these coverage and liability issues and is, thus, confronted with continuing uncertainty in its efforts to quantify A&E exposures.

Our A&E exposure is administered out of our offices in the United Kingdom and Rhode Island and centrally administered from the United Kingdom. In light of the intensive claim settlement process for these claims, which involves comprehensive fact gathering and subject matter expertise, our management believes that it is prudent to have a centrally administered claim facility to handle A&E claims on behalf of all of our subsidiaries. Our A&E claims staff, working in conjunction with two U.S.-qualified attorneys experienced in A&E liabilities, proactively administers, on a cost-effective basis, the A&E claims submitted to our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries.

Our independent, external actuaries use industry benchmarking methodologies to estimate appropriate IBNR reserves for our A&E exposures. These methods are discussed in detail in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies”.

19

Table of Contents

The liability for unpaid losses and LAE, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects our best estimate for future amounts needed to pay losses and related LAE as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with U.S. GAAP. As of December 31, 2011, we had net loss reserves of $528.4 million for asbestos-related claims and $93.1 million for environmental pollution-related claims. The following table provides a reconciliation of our gross and net loss and ALAE reserves from A&E exposures and the movement in gross and net reserves:

During 2011, 2010 and 2009, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired during the year, our reserves for A&E liabilities decreased by $122.4 million, $173.2 million and $210.0 million on a gross basis and by $114.7 million, $146.6 million and $194.2 million on a net basis, respectively. The reductions in gross reserves arose from paid claims, successful commutations, policy buy-backs, generally favorable claim settlements during the year and reductions in IBNR resulting from actuarial analysis of remaining liabilities.

Asbestos continues to be the most significant and difficult mass tort for the insurance industry in terms of claims volume and expense. We believe that the insurance industry has been adversely affected by judicial interpretations that have had the effect of maximizing insurance recoveries for asbestos claims, from both a coverage and liability perspective. Generally, only policies underwritten prior to 1986 have potential asbestos exposure, since most policies underwritten after this date contain an absolute asbestos exclusion.

From 2001 through 2003 the industry experienced increasing numbers of asbestos claims, including claims from individuals who did not appear to be impaired by asbestos exposure. Since 2003, however, new claim filings have been fairly stable. It is possible that the increases observed in the early part of the decade were triggered by various state tort reforms (discussed immediately below). At this point, we cannot predict whether claim filings will return to pre-2004 levels, remain stable, or begin to decrease.

Since 2001, several U.S. states have proposed, and in many cases enacted, tort reform statutes that impact asbestos litigation by, for example, making it more difficult for a diverse group of plaintiffs to jointly file a single case, reducing “forum-shopping” by requiring that a potential plaintiff must have been exposed to asbestos in the state in which he/she files a lawsuit, or permitting consolidation of discovery. These statutes typically apply to suits filed after a stated date. When a statute is proposed or enacted, asbestos defendants often experience a marked increase in new lawsuits, as plaintiffs’ attorneys seek to file suit before the effective date of the legislation. Some of this increased claim volume likely represents an acceleration of valid claims that would have been brought in the future, while some claims will likely prove to have little or no merit. As many of these claims are still pending, we cannot predict what portion of the increased number of claims represent valid claims. Also, the acceleration of claims increases the uncertainty surrounding projections of future claims in the affected jurisdictions.

20

Table of Contents

During the same timeframe as tort reform, the U.S. federal and various U.S. state governments sought comprehensive asbestos reform to manage the growing court docket and costs surrounding asbestos litigation, in addition to the increasing number of corporate bankruptcies resulting from overwhelming asbestos liabilities. Whereas the federal government has failed to establish a national asbestos trust fund to address the asbestos problem, several states, including Texas and Florida, have implemented a medical criteria reform approach that only permits litigation to proceed when a plaintiff can establish and demonstrate actual physical impairment.

Much like tort reform, asbestos litigation reform has also spurred a significant increase in the number of lawsuits filed in advance of the law’s enactment. We cannot predict whether the drop off in the number of filed claims is due to the accelerated number of filings or an actual trend in the decline of alleged asbestos injuries.

Environmental Pollution Exposures

Environmental pollution claims represent another significant exposure for us. However, environmental pollution claims have been developing as expected over the past few years as a result of stable claim trends. Claims against Fortune 500 companies are generally declining, and while insureds with single-site exposures are still active, in many cases claims are being settled for less than initially anticipated due to improved site remediation technology and effective policy buy-backs.

Despite the stability of recent trends, there remains significant uncertainty involved in estimating liabilities related to these exposures. Unlike asbestos claims which are generated primarily from allegedly injured private individuals, environmental claims generally result from governmentally initiated activities. First, the number of waste sites subject to cleanup is unknown. Approximately 1,298 sites are included on the National Priorities List (NPL) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency as of September 30, 2011, the end of its most recent fiscal year, an increase of 16 sites from the prior year. State authorities have separately identified many additional sites and, at times, aggressively implement site cleanups. Second, the liabilities of the insureds themselves are difficult to estimate. At any given site, the allocation of remediation cost among the potentially responsible parties varies greatly depending upon a variety of factors. Third, as with asbestos liability and coverage issues, judicial precedent regarding liability and coverage issues regarding pollution claims does not provide clear guidance. There is also uncertainty as to the U.S. federal “Superfund” law itself and, at this time, we cannot predict what, if any, reforms to this law might be enacted by the U.S. federal government, or the effect of any such changes on the insurance industry.

Other Latent Exposures

While we do not view health hazard exposures such as silica and tobacco as becoming a material concern, recent developments in lead litigation have caused us to watch these matters closely. Recently, municipal and state governments have had success, using a public nuisance theory, pursuing the former makers of lead pigment for the abatement of lead paint in certain home dwellings. As lead paint was used almost exclusively into the early 1970’s, large numbers of old housing stock contain lead paint that can prove hazardous to people and, particularly, children. Although governmental success has been limited thus far, we continue to monitor developments carefully due to the size of the potential awards sought by plaintiffs. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies — Latent Claims” on page 74 for a further discussion of recent lead paint developments.

Investments

Investment Strategy and Guidelines

We derive a significant portion of our income from our invested assets. As a result, our operating results depend in part on the performance of our investment portfolio. Because of the unpredictable nature of losses that may arise under our insurance and reinsurance subsidiaries’ insurance or reinsurance policies and as a result of our opportunistic commutation strategy, our liquidity needs can be substantial and may arise at any time. Except

21

Table of Contents

for that portion of our portfolio that is invested in non-investment grade securities, we generally follow a conservative investment strategy designed to emphasize the preservation of our invested assets and provide sufficient liquidity for the prompt payment of claims and settlement of commutation payments.

As of December 31, 2011, we had cash and cash equivalents of $1.22 billion. Our cash and cash equivalent portfolio is comprised mainly of high-grade fixed deposits, commercial paper with maturities of less than three months and money market funds.

Our investment portfolio consists primarily of investment grade-rated, liquid, fixed maturity securities of short-to-medium term duration — 90.8% of our total investment portfolio as of December 31, 2011 consisted of investment grade securities, as compared to 87.6% as of December 31, 2010. In addition, our non-investment grade securities, excluding bond funds included as part of other investments, comprised 7.6% and 8.2% of our total investment portfolio, as at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and consisted of exposures to equities, limited partnerships and limited liability companies, collectively private equities, certain fixed maturity securities, bond and hedge funds. Assuming the commitments to the other investments were fully funded as of December 31, 2011 out of cash balances on hand at that time, the percentage of investments held in other than investment grade securities would increase to 9.7%. As of December 31, 2010, the increase would have been to 11.0%.

We strive to structure our investments in a manner that recognizes our liquidity needs for future liabilities. In that regard, we attempt to correlate the maturity and duration of our investment portfolio to our general liability profile. If our liquidity needs or general liability profile unexpectedly change, we may not continue to structure our investment portfolio in its current manner and would adjust as necessary to meet new business needs.

Our investment performance is subject to a variety of risks, including risks related to general economic conditions, market volatility, interest rate fluctuations, foreign exchange risk, liquidity risk and credit and default risk. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions and other factors beyond our control. A significant increase in interest rates could result in significant losses, realized or unrealized, in the value of our investment portfolio. A significant portion of our non-investment grade securities consists of alternative investments that subject us to restrictions on redemption, which may limit our ability to withdraw funds for some period of time after the initial investment. The values of, and returns on, such investments may also be more volatile.

Investment Committee and Investment Manager

The investment committee of our board of directors supervises our investment activity. The investment committee regularly monitors our overall investment results, which it ultimately reports to the board of directors. Our investment committee is comprised of Robert J. Campbell, the chairman of the committee, Richard J. Harris, Charles T. Akre, Jr. and Sumit Rajpal. With the exception of Mr. Harris, our Chief Financial Officer, all of the members of the committee are members of our board of directors. J. Christopher Flowers served on the investment committee until his resignation as a director on May 6, 2011. The investment committee met five times during the year ended December 31, 2011 in conjunction with our regularly scheduled board of directors meetings. The committee made the following major decisions during the year: (i) approved increased allocations to equities and structured credit securities; (ii) approved increased allocation from cash into short duration securities, predominantly corporate and non-U.S. government securities; and (iii) ensured that the investment portfolio of each entity we acquired during the year met our investment criteria in regards to duration and ratings.

As stated in “— Investment Strategy and Guidelines” above, we generally follow a conservative investment strategy designed to emphasize the preservation of our invested assets and provide sufficient liquidity for the prompt payment of claims and settlement of commutation payments. Our investment portfolio consists primarily of investment grade-rated, liquid, fixed maturity securities of short-to-medium duration and mutual funds. As of

22

Table of Contents

December 31, 2011, only 4.2% of our total investment portfolio was classified as Level 3 as defined in the Fair Value Measurements and Disclosure topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification, or FASB ASC. Given our investment objectives, the composition of our current investment portfolio, and our business strategy to acquire insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off, our investment committee’s efforts tend to be focused on the structural issues surrounding acquired portfolios. While the investment committee does review the ongoing performance of our investment portfolio, we have not experienced significant widespread liquidity or pricing issues with our portfolio that would require meaningful review by the committee.

We utilize various companies to provide investment advisory and/or management services. We have agreed to pay investment management fees to the managers. These fees, which vary depending on the amount of assets under management, are included in net investment income. The total fees we paid to our investment managers for the year ended December 31, 2011 were $2.8 million, including approximately $0.7 million to our largest single investment manager. We have investment management agreements with all of our managers, however, none of them are material to us.

Investment Portfolio

Accounting Treatment

Our investments primarily consist of fixed maturity securities. Our fixed maturity investments are comprised of available-for-sale and trading investments as defined in the Investment — Debt and Equity Securities topic of FASB ASC. Available-for-sale and trading investments are carried at their fair value on the balance sheet date. Unrealized holdings gains and losses on trading investments, which represent the difference between the amortized cost and the fair market value of securities, are included in our net earnings and are reported as net realized and unrealized gains and losses. Unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities are recognized as part of other comprehensive income.

Composition as of December 31, 2011 and 2010

As of December 31, 2011 and 2010, the fair value of our aggregate invested assets totaled approximately $4.56 billion and $3.88 billion, respectively. Aggregate invested assets included cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and cash equivalents, fixed maturity securities, equities, short-term investments and other investments.

23

Table of Contents

The following table shows the types of securities in our portfolio, including cash equivalents, and their fair market values as of December 31, 2011 and 2010:

U.S. Government and Agency Securities

U.S. government and agency securities are comprised primarily of bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Non-U.S. Government Securities

Non-U.S. government securities represent the fixed maturity obligations of non-U.S. governmental entities. These are comprised primarily of bonds issued by the Australian, United Kingdom, French, Canadian and German governments.

Corporate Securities

Corporate securities are comprised of bonds issued by corporations that are diversified across a wide range of issuers and industries. The largest single issuer of corporate securities in our portfolio as of December 31, 2011 was National Australia Bank, which represented 3.3% of our total cash and investments and had a credit rating of AA-.

24

Table of Contents

Other Investments

We have a capital commitment of $10.0 million in the GSC European Mezzanine Fund II, LP, or GSC. GSC invests in mezzanine securities of middle and large market companies throughout Western Europe. As of December 31, 2011, the capital contributed to GSC was $9.9 million, with the remaining commitment being $0.1 million.

We have a capital commitment of $100.0 million in the Flowers Fund and $100.0 million in J.C. Flowers III L.P., or Fund III. Both the Flowers Fund and Fund III are private investment funds advised by J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. As of December 31, 2011, the capital contributed to the Flowers Fund and Fund III was $97.8 million and $30.7 million, respectively, with the remaining commitment being approximately $2.2 million and $69.3 million, respectively. During 2011, we received $0.5 million in advisory service fees from the Flowers Fund. Certain of our officers and directors made personal investments in the Flowers Fund.

On January 28, 2009, we invested approximately $8.7 million in JCF III Co-invest I L.P., an entity affiliated with J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC and Mr. Flowers, in connection with its investment in certain of the operations, assets and liabilities of OneWest Bank FSB (formerly known as IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.).

We had, as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, excluding our investment in Varadero International Ltd., or Varadero, investments in entities affiliated with Mr. Flowers with a total value of $102.3 million and $96.1 million, respectively, and outstanding commitments to entities managed by Mr. Flowers, for the same periods, of $71.5 million and $84.6 million, respectively. Our outstanding commitments may be drawn down over approximately the next four years. As at December 31, 2011, our related party investments associated with Mr. Flowers, including our investment in Varadero, accounted for 92.2% of our total unfunded capital commitments and 65.9% of our total amount of investments classified as other investments.

In March 2010, we committed to invest $20.0 million in Varadero, a hedge fund. The investment manager of Varadero is Varadero Capital, L.P., of which Varadero GP, LLC is the general partner. In December 2011, we committed to invest a further $21.5 million in the hedge fund. As at December 31, 2011, we had funded 100% of our capital commitment. Both the investment manager and general partner are partially owned by an entity affiliated with us and Mr. Flowers.

In July 2011, we committed to invest an aggregate $1.0 million in Meetinghouse Funding III. As at December 31, 2011, we had contributed $0.1 million to the Meetinghouse Fund with the remaining unfunded commitment being approximately $0.9 million.

In October 2011, we made a commitment to invest an aggregate $5.0 million in Dowling Capital Partners I, L.P. (“Dowling”). As at December 31, 2011, we had not contributed any capital to Dowling.

During 2011, we redeemed approximately $66.9 million and invested $19.3 million in various bond funds.

25

Table of Contents

Equities

During 2011, we increased our allocation to global equities by $29.9 million. Our equity portfolios consist primarily of well diversified publicly traded common stocks. We also have approximately $7.6 million of preferred stocks. As at December 31, 2011, no single common stock or preferred stock accounted for more than 4.5% or 5.1%, respectively, of the total value of our equity portfolios. No impairment charges were recorded in 2011 in relation to any of our equity portfolios.

Ratings as of December 31, 2011 and 2010

The investment ratings (provided by major rating agencies) for our fixed maturity securities held as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

Maturity Distribution as of December 31, 2011 and 2010

The maturity distribution for our fixed maturity securities held as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 was as follows:

26

Table of Contents

Unrealized Losses as of December 31, 2011 and 2010

The unrealized losses for our fixed maturity available-for-sale securities held as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows: