Trending Now
  • Court of Appeal Shuts Down BHP's Attempt to Overturn Mariana Liability Judgment
Commercial Special Features

Legal Finance ABS for Institutional Investors: Market Securities Expands Offering

By Celso Filho |
April 9, 2026

Legal Finance ABS for Institutional Investors: Market Securities Expands Offering

The following article was contributed by Celso Filho, Global Head of Special Projects at Market Securities, and co-founder and CEO of Rachel AI.

Life insurers and other institutional investors face a structural allocation challenge: securing sufficient volumes of rated, long-duration, yield-bearing assets to match long-tail liabilities. Public investment-grade bond markets remain large, but they do not consistently provide the spread, structure, or customization required. As a result, insurers have steadily increased allocations to private placements, asset-backed securities, and other forms of private credit.

According to Milliman’s 2026 analysis of NAIC statutory filings, private bonds now account for approximately 46% of U.S. life insurers’ bond portfolios — up from 29% a decade ago — reflecting a sustained and accelerating shift toward alternative sources of yield and duration. The trend is sharpest among PE-owned life insurers, where structured securities account for approximately 49% of total bonds — underscoring how deeply the search for rated, yield-bearing paper has become embedded in the asset allocation strategies of the most capital-active players in the sector.

Market Securities is addressing that demand by bringing to market asset-backed securities backed by legal finance receivables, including pre-settlement plaintiff advances and receivables linked to contingent fee arrangements with law firms. These assets introduce a distinct return profile driven by legal case cash flows rather than traditional corporate credit cycles, and they can be structured into rated securitizations suitable for institutional portfolios.

The opportunity is crystallizing across three investor tiers — each approaching the asset class from a different angle, but converging on the same structure and, together, driving the institutionalization of legal finance.

  1. Insurers and other rated-mandate investors represent the largest pool of demand. Operating within strict capital and rating constraints, they allocate to investment-grade instruments at 125 to 200 basis points over Treasuries and can deploy hundreds of millions per transaction. Their participation defines the scale of the opportunity — and creates the demand for rated, structured exposure that legal finance ABS is uniquely positioned to meet.
  2. Private credit managers, sovereign wealth funds, and large family offices occupy the senior and mezzanine tranches, targeting enhanced yield with structural protections. Unlike insurers, these investors are not dependent on ratings and underwrite assets directly, focusing on risk-adjusted returns, structure, and downside protection. They provide the capital depth required to scale transactions and anchor issuance.
  3. Specialist legal finance investors sit in the junior and equity tranches, underwriting legal risk directly and targeting returns in excess of 25%. These investors take first-loss positions, pricing legal risk at the asset level — and for them, securitization offers a compelling strategic advantage: lower cost of capital and greater leverage availability than traditional fund formation, particularly relevant in today’s challenging fundraising environment.

These tiers are complementary rather than competitive. Rated investors bring scale and duration demand; private credit and sovereign capital provide flexible, non-rating-constrained liquidity; and specialist managers contribute underwriting expertise and first-loss alignment. Securitization is the architecture that aligns them — converting legal finance receivables into a format that institutional capital can size, rate, and deploy against.

Market Securities sees this convergence as structural rather than cyclical, and legal finance ABS as the mechanism through which it becomes permanent.

—

Celso Filho, CFA, CAIA is Global Head of Special Projects at Market Securities, based in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). He is also co-founder and CEO of Rachel AI, a London-incorporated litigation finance technology and analytics platform. Celso began his career as a lawyer, practising for seven years before transitioning into investment banking and specialty finance, with prior roles at Citigroup and Credit Suisse. He holds an MBA from INSEAD.

About the author

Celso Filho

Celso Filho

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Third-Party Funding Reshapes Post-M&A Arbitration in Spain

By John Freund |

Third-party funding is increasingly shaping the strategic landscape of post-M&A arbitration, according to discussions at the OPEN de Arbitraje 2026 conference held in Madrid. Practitioners and arbitrators examined how external capital is altering the calculus for claimants pursuing disputes that arise from share purchase agreements, earn-out clauses, and post-closing indemnity claims.

As reported by Iberian Lawyer, panelists framed third-party funding as a viable alternative for parties navigating the often-protracted and capital-intensive nature of M&A arbitrations. The discussion emphasized that funding agreements are no longer reserved for distressed claimants but are increasingly deployed by well-capitalized parties seeking to manage risk, free up balance sheet capacity, or align outside investors with the success of a claim.

Spain has emerged as one of Europe's more receptive jurisdictions for funded arbitration, with both the Spanish Court of Arbitration and the Madrid International Arbitration Center requiring disclosure of third-party funding arrangements. That regulatory clarity has helped institutional funders deepen their involvement in the Iberian market while giving counterparties greater visibility into the financing of claims.

The panel highlighted that post-M&A arbitration presents particular structural features that make funding attractive: claims tend to be discrete, liability-driven, and supported by extensive transactional documentation, all of which improve underwriting predictability. As funders refine their models for valuing M&A disputes, the conference signaled that capital is poised to play a more visible role in shaping which claims are pursued and how they are resolved.

Commercial

Funded Class Action Delivers NZ$125 Million Win Against ANZ in New Zealand High Court

By John Freund |

Litigation funding played a decisive role in a landmark New Zealand High Court ruling that has left ANZ Bank New Zealand facing potential liability of up to NZ$125 million. The class action, brought on behalf of approximately 17,000 borrowers, would not have been viable without backing from funders LPF Group and CASL, which financed the proceedings against the country's largest bank.

As reported by LawFuel, Justice Geoffrey Venning delivered summary judgment against ANZ on May 4, 2026, finding the bank in breach of disclosure obligations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA). The case turned on a coding error in ANZ's loan systems that affected variation letters issued between June 2015 and May 2016. Although the bank argued the underpayments averaged just NZ$2 per customer per month, the court held that "technical errors in disclosure, no matter how small the financial impact, trigger automatic statutory penalties."

ANZ was ordered to refund the lead plaintiffs NZ$32,728.42, establishing a benchmark that, when extrapolated across the class, produces the NZ$125 million exposure figure. The judgment rejected ANZ's "no harm" defense, confirming that Section 22 of the CCCFA imposes strict liability regardless of actual financial harm.

ANZ chief executive Antonia Watson described the consequences as "disproportionate." The bank reported after-tax New Zealand profit of roughly NZ$1.4 billion last year. The decision underscores how funded class actions are reshaping consumer redress in jurisdictions where individual claims would be uneconomic to pursue.

Commercial

EU Court of Justice to Weigh Litigation Funding’s Impact on Antitrust Enforcement

By John Freund |

The Court of Justice of the European Union is set to examine whether certain forms of litigation financing risk undermining the effectiveness of the bloc's antitrust laws, in a referral that could reshape the funding landscape for cross-border consumer class actions. The case originates from Portugal and centers on the funding arrangements supporting Ius Omnibus, a non-profit consumer protection association that has emerged as a prominent claimant in European competition litigation.

As reported by MLex, the CJEU will determine whether class actions backed by particular funding structures pose a risk to the public-interest objectives of EU antitrust enforcement. The referral asks the court to assess whether economic incentives embedded in third-party funding can coexist with the bloc's competition rules or whether they create conflicts that compromise enforcement quality.

The decision is expected to carry significant implications for consumer associations and class representatives across Europe, many of which rely on outside capital to pursue mass claims against companies accused of anticompetitive conduct. A ruling that restricts certain funding models could narrow the financial pathways available to non-profit claimants, while a ruling that affirms flexible structures would reinforce that alternative finance is compatible with robust enforcement.

The case arrives as European policymakers continue to debate the boundaries of permissible litigation funding under the Representative Actions Directive and as national courts in Germany, the Netherlands, and Portugal develop divergent approaches to funder disclosure and control. The CJEU's eventual judgment is poised to set a binding precedent across all 27 member states.