Insurance-linked securities: cat bond, cat fight
In hindsight, 2013 may be seen as the year in which insurance-linked securities (ILSs) became truly mainstream. ILS products such as catastrophe bonds, industry loss warranties (ILWs) and collateralised reinsurance became more popular and, importantly, products that traditional P&C reinsurers started to actively engage with and underwrite.
ILS products are seen by investors as a simple and uncorrelated asset class yielding reliable returns, with the perceived advantage that their simplicity eliminates the risk of disputes. External reporting indices allow the parties to know precisely when a policy is triggered and for how much.
But is it really that simple? Disputes in the ILS arena are more prevalent than one might think. Many ILS contracts contain confidential arbitration provisions meaning that disputes are often kept out of the press…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
The Court of Appeal has confirmed the meaning of the expression “in-transit loss” in a voyage charter party in the Trafigura Beheer case.
A recent Commercial Court decision considered the position when a contract provides for the law of one jurisdiction to be applicable, but for the arbitration to take place outside that jurisdiction.