Insurance Australia Group (IAG) has settled the last of the Greensill proceedings, telling the ASX today that its subsidiary Insurance Australia Limited (IAL) has agreed to resolve the claim brought by White Oak against IAL and other parties in the Federal Court of Australia.
The aggregate face value of the claimed amount in the White Oak proceeding was approximately $170 million plus interest, IAG said in a release authorised by CEO Nick Hawkins (pictured). The terms are confidential but the insurer said the settlements of the Greensill proceedings "would not have a material impact on its financial position or FY27 financial results," describing that as consistent with its previous disclosures.
The White Oak proceeding was the last of the actions brought by Greensill Bank AG and its insolvency administrator, Credit Suisse entities and White Oak over policies purportedly issued by BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd on behalf of IAL to Greensill entities.
Trade credit insurance pays out when a business's customers fail to pay their invoices. In the Greensill structure, the cover sat behind invoice-backed notes sold on to investors, which is why the status of the policies became the central question once the supply chain financier collapsed in 2021.
Read next: IAG announces settlement of Credit Suisse Greensill proceedings
The case, White Oak Commercial Finance Europe (Non-Levered) Limited v Insurance Australia Limited, NSD 1039 of 2021, was one of eleven proceedings case-managed together in the Federal Court. IAL, BCC Trade Credit and BCC's former head of trade credit, Greg Brereton, were among the respondents, with Tokio Marine entities and broker Marsh drawn in through related claims and cross-claims. In a June 2026 Federal Court ruling on expert evidence, IAL's pleaded case in the Credit Suisse proceedings was recorded as being that the policies were not valid and that BCC was not authorised to issue them.
Today's announcement follows IAG's September settlement of the Credit Suisse Greensill proceedings, which carried a face value of about A$2.8 billion plus interest, and a settlement announced in May with Greensill Bank AG and its insolvency administrator, which IAG put at a face value of about A$4 billion plus interest. At the time of the Credit Suisse announcement, IAG said IAL continued to defend the White Oak claim.
Read next: IAG could be dodging $3 billion Federal Court showdown with Credit Suisse, AFR reports
Lawyers told a Sydney court on 24 September that the White Oak claims remained set to go to trial the following month, Global Trade Review reported. On 6 October, the Federal Court ordered White Oak to provide A$5 million in security for costs after IAL and the BCC Tokio Marine parties argued the vehicle was effectively in run-off with minimal assets, according to Law360 Australia.
The litigation produced years of interlocutory rulings without a judgment on whether the policies responded. Those included the Federal Court order compelling White Oak to produce WhatsApp messages in June and an April decision requiring disclosure of hundreds of settlement documents.
In its September announcement, IAG said the Credit Suisse settlement would not have a material impact on its financial position or FY27 results based on anticipated recoveries including from insurance and reinsurance arrangements and other indemnities. The Financial Times reported that Marsh was covering the largest portion of that settlement, with IAG and Tokio Marine also contributing, as covered in reporting on Marsh's share of the Credit Suisse settlement. None of the parties has confirmed the figure or how it was split.
Marsh recorded a charge of US$144 million for the three months to 30 September and US$569 million for the nine months, net of insurance proceeds, in connection with the Australian proceedings, according to the broker's quarterly filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing states that the recorded liability reflects the settlements with Greensill Bank and Credit Suisse and related costs.
Every claim in the Australian proceedings has now settled on confidential terms. No court has ruled on whether BCC had authority to bind IAL, and no published reasoning on that question has come out of five years of litigation.
