August 23, 2021

Litigation Buyout Insurance: How Does It Work?

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Ross Weiner

|

August 23, 2021

In July 2021, Risk Settlements co-presented a PLI  webinar  on how litigation buyout insurance (LBO insurance) can help keep companies “deal ready.” Following up on that presentation, we thought a brief article detailing the nuts and bolts of litigation buyout insurance might help those interested in pursuing such a policy to determine if it is right for them. Below, we have outlined some of the most common questions we receive about the logistics behind LBO insurance and our thoughts on each.

LBO insurance is an insurance product through which the insurer agrees, in exchange for a premium, to take on the financial risks and liabilities associated with a known, threatened, or existing class action, antitrust, or non-class case at any time prior to a final settlement. It is like buying fire insurance, only instead of doing so to cover the risk of a fire, you do so because you  already know  your house is on fire. The only remaining question is how much damage (or loss) will there be?

Every LBO policy is for an amount certain. In other words, even if you want to insure an active litigation for “all the case is worth,” due to applicable insurance regulations, you cannot ask for an open-ended policy that covers all loss from a case. Rather, you must decide in advance exactly how much coverage you are looking for.

It goes without saying that every LBO policy is individually tailored, designed to help a company achieve its business, financial, and legal objectives. But if you are thinking about procuring LBO insurance, you should consider both the amount of coverage you may need and how you’d like to structure the policy, including the age-old question of retention vs. premium.

Policies are customized to address the unique legal issues facing a particular company and can be crafted to address a full spectrum of unique litigation risks. Once a policy is in place, the insurance carrier may take over defense of a case and pay defense costs, covers any adverse judgments or fee awards, or both.

The short answer: yes.

One paradigm example sticks out. In 2020, a private equity owned human resources company was finalizing a sale when it received a letter from a plaintiff’s attorney threatening a wage and hour lawsuit. The company promptly disclosed the letter to the potential buyer, after which the potential buyer expressed serious reservations about completing the transaction. The selling company, in consultation with its lawyers, estimated the potential exposure at $11 million.

At this point in time, the selling company turned to Risk Settlements to determine if there was an insurance-based solution that would assuage the buyer. After diligencing the case, weighing the risks, and evaluating comparable cases (and settlements) involving the same plaintiff’s counsel, Risk Settlements was able to price the risk. For less than $3 million, the company was able to procure a policy covering more than its estimated exposure, thereby giving the buyer the comfort it needed to close the sale. The transaction was saved.

A common question companies often ask is what costs—incurred by a company in the normal course of litigation—are not covered by the LBO insurance policy? The following are some standard exclusions that an insurer generally will not cover:

  • Settlements entered into  without  the insurer’s consent;
  • Costs above a certain (negotiated) materiality threshold incurred without the insurer’s consent;
  • “Overhead” costs related to litigation cooperation (i.e., the insurer will not pay for employee time cooperating (e.g. a 30(b)(6) deposition)) or traditional overhead expenses (e.g. photocopies); and
  • Loss arising from the insured’s failure to cooperate.

This is an issue also addressed in the policy itself. In our experience, negotiations surrounding the power to settle a matter are often the most contentious and involved. From the insurer’s perspective, it does not want the obligation to settle a matter at a significant loss if a better outcome can be salvaged. And from the insured’s perspective, it wants to be able to help drive a matter to its conclusion to try and minimize distraction stemming from litigation. So how does this play out?

The following questions help guide the discussion as the insurer and the insured consider their positions:

  • Will a settlement be purely monetary or will there likely be an injunctive relief component?
  • Will the company be required to admit wrongdoing as part of a likely settlement, and if so, could this cause harm in other ancillary matters?
  • Could a sizable settlement encourage either future private litigation or follow-on regulatory investigations?

The answers to these questions (among others) will help the parties think through how they view settlement and which party (insurer or insured) should control the decision.

Simply put, the most frequent reason cited by companies looking for LBO insurance is that (a) a third party (e.g., a potential acquiror) is concerned about a litigation exposure; (b) the third party is unwilling to act (e.g. complete an acquisition) unless and until the risk is abated; and (c) there is either insufficient time or interest to settle the matter promptly.

For those looking to close an M&A transaction, LBO insurance offers certain advantages over the alternatives. Yes, sometimes a large escrow can make the buyer comfortable, but that ties up the money for the life of the litigation, which can often go on for years. And overpaying for a quick settlement to make the case go away will take cash out of seller’s pocket and leave the buyer in worse fiscal shape. LBO insurance is far superior to both.

When considering whether to insure, insurance carriers place a premium (pun intended) on candor. Companies looking to transfer exposure should always be upfront with material risks related to the matter. Unfortunately, and all too frequently, we have received submissions where potentially problematic—but potentially solvable—issues are not disclosed at all, only to be discovered during diligence through a Google search. Such omissions of clear red flags can do irreparable harm to the process, leaving the insurer unable to trust the potential insured and unlikely to offer coverage.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of materials that the carrier may require before deciding on the matter:

  • Current counsel’s analysis of the merits, case status, and potential damages;
  • Current counsel’s budget; and
  • The history (if any) of settlement negotiations.

One benefit of seeking out LBO insurance—even if the company does not ultimately purchase it—is the opportunity to have another set of eyes review the risk a company is facing. Indeed, not just any set of eyes, but those of an entity looking to back the risk financially. In our experience, the insurer’s assessment can help focus the company on the strengths and weaknesses of the case, all of which inures to the company’s benefit as it proceeds with litigation (either with or without insurance coverage).

***

Ultimately, LBO insurance can be adapted to fit a wide array of complex litigation issues. It can help remove obstacles from the path of deals and assist companies to prepare for a sale. And at its core, it aims to take uncertainty off the books and allow companies to move forward with transactions that will help them grow and thrive.

This article has been published in the  PLI Chronicle: Insights and Perspectives for the Legal Communityhttps://bit.ly/3fMTISg.

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

Blurred view through glass of a meeting in a sunlit office.
By Certum Team January 12, 2026
Litigation finance has become an essential tool for modern litigation strategy — but with its growth has come a wave of discovery requests seeking information about funding arrangements. These requests are improper, burdensome, and legally unsupported. To help lawyers and litigants push back with confidence, Certum has released a new Model Brief Opposing Discovery of Litigation Funding—a comprehensive, practitioner-oriented document designed to equip litigators with the strongest arguments, cases, and frameworks available. This publication is now available for free download . The Model Brief is part of Certum’s growing library of thought leadership and practical guidance on litigation finance and insurance. That library includes Certum’s Guide to Litigation Funding and its annual survey of in-house counsel . Across federal and state courts, parties continue to seek discovery into litigation funding sources and materials, often as a tactic rather than a legitimate inquiry into claims or defenses. These efforts raise serious issues: Privilege and work-product concerns Chilling effects on access to justice Attempts to shift focus away from the merits Increased litigation costs and delays Yet for many lawyers, responding to these requests requires reinventing the wheel. Certum’s model brief solves that problem. It provides a structured, persuasive, and research-backed response that can be adapted swiftly to any case. Click here to download the brief.
By Certum Team January 6, 2026
Bloomberg recently interviewed Certum Group’s William Marra as part of its coverage of efforts by commercial liability insurers to require the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements. Marra explained to Bloomberg that “[t]he disclosure of litigation funding risks putting impecunious litigants at a systematic disadvantage in our legal system,” adding mandatory disclosure “can disclose to defendants very valuable information, including who has funding, and critically, who does not have funding.” Marra further responded to the argument that litigation funders might fuel frivolous litigation. “To the contrary, the evidence shows that funders serve as a very effective screen, only backing the most meritorious cases, and if anything, likely resulting in fewer weak cases getting filed,” Marra said. This statements builds on arguments Marra previously advantaged in a Vanderbilt Law Review article about litigation funding.  The Bloomberg article is available here .
Blurred view of a business meeting in progress through a glass door. People are seated around a table.
By Certum Team December 17, 2025
Certum’s William Marra has been elected to the Board of Directors of the International Legal Finance Association, the litigation finance industry’s leading advocacy group. Will joins five other new members of ILFA’s Board, including: Marcel Wegmüller, the co-founder and CEO of Nivalion; David Perla, the Vice Chair of Burford Capital; Erik Bomans, the CEO of Deminor Recovery Services; Kacey Wolmer, the CEO of Contingency Capital; Rob Rothkopf, the founder and Managing Partner of Balance Legal Capital. “We are honored to welcome Marcel, David, Erik, Kacey, Rob, and William to ILFA’s Board of Directors,” said Paul Kong, the Executive Director of ILFA. “Each brings exceptional expertise, deep industry insight, and a demonstrated commitment to the responsible growth of legal finance. Their leadership will strengthen ILFA’s work to promote transparency, expand access to justice, and support the continued global development of our industry.” “I am delighted to join ILFA’s Board and assist with its important public policy work,” Will Marra said. “Litigation finance helps level the playing field and ensures cases are resolved based on their merits, not the size of a party’s checkbook. LFA’s advocacy for claimholders who need litigation finance is more important now than ever before.” The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world.