The Greensill collapse keeps getting messier - and a Federal Court judge has now let Credit Suisse bring in a second expert as it pursues insurer IAL.
In a ruling dated June 22, 2026, the court said Credit Suisse can rely on a second expert report, alongside an earlier one, in its bid to recover money under trade credit insurance tied to the failed Greensill empire. The ruling is procedural - the wider case is still heading to trial.
For insurers and claims teams, this is one of the biggest coverage fights still in play. The Credit Suisse funds invested in Notes - debt instruments backed by trade receivables sourced through Greensill. According to the judgment, those Notes were supported by trade credit insurance issued to Greensill entities by BCC Trade Credit Pty Ltd, acting as an authorised representative of Insurance Australia Limited. The cover was meant to cushion the funds if the underlying debtors did not pay.
Greensill collapsed in March 2021. Now the funds want IAL to pay. IAL denies the policies are valid and denies BCC was authorised to issue them.
That is the main event. This ruling is a fight over evidence.
The case is enormous. The judgment notes the pleadings run past 23,000 pages and the trial will need findings on the laws of Switzerland, Luxembourg, England and Wales, Japan and Germany. To keep it manageable, the court ruled in December 2024 that parties on the same side of an issue could not call more than one expert on it.
The dispute centred on the "CS Reasonable Investor Questions" - what a competent investor and its managers should have done around the Greensill deals. IAL and the other respondents say the Credit Suisse side share blame for their losses.
Credit Suisse filed two reports touching those questions. One addressed them under Luxembourg law and did not cover the position from a Swiss law or regulatory angle. The second came at the questions from a different direction - the management of structured credit products, regardless of where the manager is based.
Two of the respondents, backed by IAL and another party, called it a back-door second expert and asked the judge to refuse leave. They argued the respondents' own expert would be left dealing with two reports. That opposition did not succeed.
The judge was critical of the timing, saying Credit Suisse should have flagged the issue sooner and that its first explanation was, in the court's words, "at best unclear". The report was allowed in anyway, on the basis that the second expert covered ground the first did not, and that shutting it out would prejudice Credit Suisse more than allowing it would prejudice the other side.
The bigger signal for the market sits beneath this one ruling: this is a long, multi-country case in which an agent's authority to bind an insurer, and the validity of the cover itself, are front and centre. Where those questions land will matter well past Greensill.
