Crown sues RiverStone in Victoria for A$72.5M coverage

Crown Resorts has initiated a lawsuit against RiverStone International in the Supreme Court of Victoria for the insurer's refusal to contribute to the settlement of a class action of A$72.5 million, filed on September 29, 2026. The legal dispute centers on payments still pending after initial disbursements; the agreement requires a final payment of A$27.5 million by May 10, 2027.

What is Crown Resorts claiming and how did it get here?

The lawsuit against RiverStone is documented in filings with the Supreme Court of Victoria and reproduces information from The Sydney Morning Herald. Crown argues that RiverStone, which assumed 50% of the risk in the fourth and fifth layers of directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance, has refused to pay its share of the A$72.5 million settlement approved in September 2025.

The agreement—formalized in a settlement deed dated May 9, 2025, and approved by Justice Nichols on September 19, 2025—established three installments: A$20 million already paid at the time of approval, A$25 million due on May 11, 2026, and A$27.5 million due on May 10, 2027. Judge Nichols valued the settlement in terms of net present value at approximately A$69.8 million, describing it as "a fair and reasonable compromise."

Details of the insurance tower and primary payment

According to reports, primary insurer AIG paid A$7.5 million before its layer was exhausted. RiverStone was retaining 50% of the exposure in the fourth and fifth layers, but has not satisfied its share. Crown is now claiming payment under those excess policies plus interest.

Some sources cited by the trade press indicate specific figures regarding the amount Crown claims from RiverStone: InsuranceAsia News reported the claim at A$22.5 million. RiverStone has yet to file its defense in court and has declined to comment in the media; Crown also refrained from making statements to The Sydney Morning Herald.

The legal core: the instruction to negotiate "as if uninsured"

Crown claims that RiverStone and other insurers told it to negotiate the settlement behaving "as though uninsured" during negotiations. Liability policies typically require the insured to act as a prudent and uninsured entity would when closing a deal, to avoid inflated sums being agreed upon with the participation of insurers.

The crux of the litigation will be to prove whether that instruction existed and, if so, whether Crown followed that directive when agreeing to the amount the court deemed reasonable. When RiverStone presents its defense, it may challenge the reasonableness of the settlement, its own consent, the allocation of loss between layers, or the applicability of the policies to the specific incident. So far, only Crown's version is on the record.

The case that paid the tower: Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd

The underlying case is Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd, brought by Maurice Blackburn in December 2020 on behalf of those who bought or held Crown shares between December 11, 2014, and October 18, 2020. The lawsuit alleged that Crown made misleading statements about its compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorism financing obligations, particularly in its international VIP activities and junket program, and breached continuous disclosure obligations.

The public announcement that triggered the fall in the share price was the communication of October 19, 2020, regarding AUSTRAC's formal investigation into Crown Melbourne. Crown reached a settlement without admitting liability.

Regulatory context and accumulated costs for Crown

The litigation with RiverStone occurs in a context of regulatory and judicial costs that continue to arise years after the central events. Among the relevant sanctions and agreements:

• A$450 million imposed by AUSTRAC in July 2023 for breaches of anti-money laundering law, according to AUSTRAC.

• A federal settlement of A$125 million accepted in 2022, prior to the 2025 agreement with shareholders.

• The A$72.5 million agreement now in dispute, payable in three installments according to the deed of May 2025.

The ruling from 2025 indicates evidence that Crown's financial statements and those of its parent showed "substantial ongoing operating losses, negative operating cash flows, and decreasing net assets," and that Crown Melbourne and Crown Perth had faced significant regulatory fines since 2022.

What this means for insurers and operators

The case serves as an example of how costs arising from compliance failures can prolong for years and ultimately be contested against the upper layers of the D&O tower. RiverStone specializes in acquiring and managing run-off liabilities: it was founded in 1999 as the run-off arm of Fairfax Financial and part of its international business was acquired by funds managed by CVC Capital Partners in 2021. Reports do not clarify whether RiverStone originally underwrote the Crown policies or if they were taken as part of a legacy portfolio.

For insurers and operators, the litigation underscores that the presence of a policy does not guarantee automated coverage of a corporate settlement; the applicability and conduct during negotiations may be disputed years later.

"The litigation will test whether insurers consented to the agreement or to their allocation of the risk," according to documentation cited by the press.

Key deadlines and immediate effects

• Date of the news filing: September 29, 2026.

• A$25 million was due on May 11, 2026; A$27.5 million is due on May 10, 2027.

• AIG paid A$7.5 million before exhausting its layer.

The deadlines in the deed do not require guarantees for the subsequent installments; if Crown defaults, the rest of the payments become due immediately and the group's claims persist. The outcome of the litigation before the Supreme Court of Victoria will determine whether the rest of the tower responds or if Blackstone and Crown must find additional liquidity.

Practical recommendations for the sector

Legal and risk departments of operators and insurers should review the wording of clauses related to conduct in negotiations and the allocation of losses between D&O layers. For investors, the case is a demonstration of the reputational and regulatory tail risk that weighs on issuers with open investigations.