Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREPartner Emmanuèle Lutfalla comments in relation to the coverage of operating losses in the case of catastrophes such as Covid-19, in La Tribune de l'assurance. Emmanuèle's comments were published in La Tribune de l'assurance, 30 June 2020 and can be found here.
"Initiated to cover the operating losses of a disaster such as Covid-19, the future "Catex" scheme sees its scope occupying the centre of debates, some wishing to extend the system to other events such as riots.
“The “exceptional disasters” system (Catex) would aim to help insured companies cope with terminations or significant decreases in activity linked to an exceptional event, such as a pandemic, the aftermath of a terrorist attack, riots.” On the sidelines of the presentation of its Catex project, the French Insurance Federation has announced its intentions regarding the scope of the future scheme. Insurers thus act on a broad conception of the scheme's triggering factors, where Planète CSCA proposes to limit it to losses following pandemics and NBCR attacks.
Combining several triggering events is rather risky, as the modelling differ, says Emmanuèle Lutfalla, associate at Signature Litigation: "The broad conception of the factors behind the activation of operating loss without damage represents an interesting model, but difficult to implement as it uses complex mathematical models. There will be adjustment variables to be implemented in terms of frequency and intensity."
***
"Initié pour couvrir les pertes d’exploitation d’une catastrophe comme celle de la Covid- 19, le futur régime « Catex » voit son champ d’application occuper les débats, certains souhaitant élargir le dispositif à d’autres événements comme les émeutes.
«Le dispositif de «catastrophes exceptionnelles» (Catex) aurait vocation à aider les entreprises assurées à faire face aux cessations ou diminutions significatives d’activité liées à un événement exceptionnel, tels une pandémie, les suites d’un attentat terroriste, des émeutes.» En marge de la présentation de son projet de dispositif Catex, la Fédération française de l’assurance a dévoilé ses intentions quant au champ d’application du futur régime. Les assureurs actent ainsi une conception large des facteurs déclencheurs du régime, là où Planète CSCA propose de le limiter aux pertes consécutives aux pandémies et aux attentats NBCR.
Combiner plusieurs événements déclencheurs peut en effet s’avérer périlleux, tant les modélisations diffèrent, estime Maître Emmanuèle Lutfalla, avocate associée chez Signature Litigation : «La conception large des facteurs à l’origine de l’activation de la PE sans dommage représente un modèle intéressant, mais difficile à mettre en œuvre, car il fait appel à des modèles mathématiques complexes. Il va y avoir des variables d’ajustement à mettre en œuvre en termes de fréquence et d’intensité.»"
