Trending Now
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

IPPR Warns UK Funding and Costs Rules Are Pushing Big-Tech Claims Into Foreign Courts

A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argues that the United Kingdom's collective action and costs rules are steering claims against large technology companies away from British courts, leaving affected workers and consumers to seek redress abroad.

As reported by IPPR, the think tank points to proceedings brought in the Dutch courts by Stichting Worker Info Exchange International against Uber on behalf of affected drivers, including British drivers. The case challenges Uber's alleged use of personal data to determine drivers' pay, following earlier research findings that its algorithmic pay system has made earnings less predictable and widened pay inequality.

The report draws a direct contrast between the two jurisdictions. Dutch law allows non-profit organisations to bring collective cases on behalf of affected people with limited risk of legal costs, while UK rules make equivalent legal action much harder and carry the risk of massive legal costs.

IPPR's recommendations go to the heart of the funding question. The report calls for allowing charities and NGOs to bring public interest cases against technology companies without requiring individual authorisation, introducing opt-out collective legal action across areas including workers' rights, and capping potentially crippling legal costs while reforming litigation funding rules.

The report, authored by independent legal strategy and technology policy consultant Swee Leng Harris, is supported by former attorney general Dominic Grieve KC, Labour MP Jess Asato, and the App Drivers and Couriers Union. Driver and union member Abdurzak Hadi said that taking on a company like Uber in court "costs huge amounts of money, far more than most drivers I know can afford."

Commercial

Tata Power Files Criminal Complaint Against Kleros Capital Over $490 Million Arbitration Award

Tata Power has escalated its long-running dispute with Kleros Capital Partners from the courtroom to the police station, with Mumbai Police registering a First Information Report against eight accused parties over an alleged fraud valued at ₹4,800 crore.

As reported by the Free Press Journal, the complaint names Kleros Capital Partners and two former Tata Power employees among the accused, alleging data leakage and criminal conspiracy in connection with a Russian coal mine transaction and the Singapore arbitration that followed.

Tata Power claims that confidential information shared with Kleros under non-disclosure agreements signed in 2013 and 2014 was later used against it in arbitration. It alleges direct losses of roughly $8 million and says a valuation report was prepared without a site visit before being relied upon in the proceedings. None of the allegations has been established in any court.

Kleros commenced SIAC arbitration in November 2020. The tribunal, chaired by Professor Lawrence Boo and including Stuart Isaacs KC and Amal K. Ganguli, issued a liability award in September 2023 and a damages award on 1 July 2025, with the majority ordering payment of $490.32 million plus simple interest at 5.33% per annum.

On 26 August 2026 the Singapore International Commercial Court rejected all three of Tata Power's set-aside applications, finding no breach of natural justice or apparent bias. The Court also held that Omni Bridgeway's involvement in unrelated proceedings involving the arbitrators did not establish apparent bias. Tata Power shares fell 3.89% following the ruling.

Commercial

Federal Court Approves $12 Million Funder Commission in RAMS Franchisee Settlement

Australia's Federal Court has approved a $12 million funding commission to Court House Capital out of a $29.6 million class action settlement, rejecting the suggestion that hindsight should be used to shrink a funder's reward.

As reported by Australasian Lawyer, Justice Lee handed down Top Ryde Financial Services Pty Ltd v RAMS Financial Group Pty Limited (Settlement Approval) [2026] FCA 1652 on 30 October 2026, approving roughly $16.6 million in total deductions comprising $4 million in legal costs and the $12 million commission.

The proceeding was brought by 15 former franchisees of RAMS, Westpac's former home-lending business, who alleged wrongful termination and the withholding of 25% of trail commissions after termination. The settlement deed required payment of $29,624,397.67, made up of withheld trail commission with interest plus an additional sum of approximately $20.8 million. RAMS also agreed to stop withholding part of future trail commission and to offer buy-outs of future trailer income. There was no admission of liability.

The Court acknowledged the commission exceeded the average percentage seen in some recent approvals, but noted that alternative formulas in the funding agreements would have produced either $8.58 million or $16 million. All but one franchisee had signed a funding agreement, and no group member objected. Justice Lee remarked that "a headline percentage may conceal more than it reveals," though he did limit the reach of the settlement deed.

For context, the 7-Eleven franchisee class action settled for $98 million in 2021, inclusive of a $24.5 million funder commission.