Prime Brokerage & Equity Finance Expert Witness
Submit Case Details for Expert Review!
Trust Signals
About Navesink International
Expert Witness Services for Prime Brokerage & Equity Finance Disputes
Prime brokerage and equity finance disputes often involve unique and complex topics including margin frameworks, collateral management, securities financing, stock lending, risk supervision, disclosures, and funding structures.
Our independent experts analyze disputes involving prime brokers, equity finance desks, hedge funds, and investors. We evaluate margin frameworks, financing structures, collateral management, risk governance, and supervision to determine what was agreed, what was known, and what actions were taken.
For complex disputes we reconstruct decision paths from communications, risk assessments, margin notices, financing records, and trade documentation, combined with detailed industry knowledge of participants and market practices.
Risk analysis typically involves:
- Prime brokerage agreements and margin annexes
- Stock lending and securities financing arrangements
- Collateral management and margin call procedures
- Margin regulations and capital requirements
- Risk escalation and supervision practices
Portfolio risk analysis including stress tests and concentration analysis Representations made by or to investors and managers
Expert Witness Services for Prime Brokerage & Equity Finance Disputes
This service typically examines questions including:
| Area of Review | Key Question Examined |
|---|---|
| Relationship Representations | Were representations accurate on both sides of the relationship? |
| Risk Assessment | Were risks properly assessed initially, reviewed regularly, and margins applied correctly? |
| Financing Structures | Were financing rates, haircuts, and risk limits appropriate for the portfolio? |
| Margin Methodology | Were margin methodologies consistent with contractual terms, regulations, and industry standards? |
| Broker Discretion | Did the prime broker exercise discretion consistent with industry standards? |
| Foreseeability | Were events foreseeable based on available risk data? |
| Internal Communications | Did internal communications accurately reflect risks and events? |
| Escalation | Were escalation decisions appropriate? Who knew what and when? |
| Loss Mitigation | Could losses have been mitigated? |
| Responsibility | Were losses due to inappropriate procedures or decisions? |
Expert Witness Services for Prime Brokerage & Equity Finance Disputes
Reconstruct the Record
Review prime brokerage agreements, communications, risk reports, margin notices, financing arrangements, and trade records tied to market conditions.
Map Exposures and Financing Risks
Analyze leverage, collateral exposures, liquidity pressures, and financing dependencies within portfolios.
Evaluate Governance and Supervision
Assess risk oversight structures, escalation processes, supervisory frameworks, and operational practices.
Analyze Margin and Collateral Flows
Reconstruct margin decisions, collateral requirements, and funding dynamics through time.
Compare with Market Practice
Evaluate decisions against prevailing industry standards and regulatory expectations.
Communicate for Litigation
Deliver clear exhibits and structured narratives supporting expert reports, depositions, and testimony.
Representative Matters
Hedge Fund v. Global Prime Broker
Core Questions:
onboarding process & disclosures, risk assessment, margin and margin
methodology, monitoring, escalation, appropriateness of decision, allocation of responsibilities
Our work: we performed a deep review of the on-boarding process, margin methodology, risk
monitoring, risk governance, escalation procedures and senior management decisions.
- On-boarding: our industry expert assessed all initial communications, risk disclosures, risk assessments, as well as broker’s choice of margin methodology, in comparison to the contractual agreements.
- Risk monitoring: we assess the monitoring process and governance, the numerical risk assessments against the possible methodologies.
- Chronology: we compared the timings of market events, risk assessment, margin requirements and their likely impact on the fund’s profitability.
- Escalation: we reviewed how and when the prime broker detected problems, escalated issues, and the senior management assessed the situation and managed the risk/margin process.
- Decisions: we assessed if the decisions were consistent with industry standards, if/how they influenced the fund’s positions & profitability, the appropriateness of the margin demands and, ultimately, the decision to force the fund into liquidatio
Analysis:
The expert’s research highlighted the prime broker’s errors in assessing the fund’s strategy during onboarding. The prime’s choice of margin methodology would have been appropriate if it had been able to calculate them properly. Instead, due to technical glitches, the broker replaced it with another methodology, without disclosure. Unnecessary margins were imposed as a result, forcing the reduction of positions at the wrong timing and amplifying losses in a snowballing process.
Outcome:
Outcome:
The expert’s report demonstrated that the decision to force the fund into liquidation was due to the prime’s mismanagement of risks, methodologies, inappropriate escalation and a cascade of erroneous decisions. It strongly supported the plaintiff’s views of the facts.
Camelot vs Main Global Banks
Core Questions:
timing of events, which departments – at each firm – understood what and when,
industry standard in risk management in Prime.
Our work: After researching and finding the fund’s trading positions, we conducted an independent analysis focused on:
- Chronological assessments: we guided the discovery and the review of all internal emails at each of the prime brokers, to assess how information transfer was physically documented. Not all banks disclosed.
- Insider knowledge:Our expert communicated with attorneys, who also had experts working on investment bank actions and roles.
- Cooperation. Our expert communicated with attorneys, who also had experts working on investment bank actions and roles.
Outcome:
We provided a detailed chronology of events at each of the prime sides, highlight if the bank were (un)able or (un)willing to protect the stock investors, and if/how they breached investment banks standards and securities laws.Related articles:
- The Other High-Stake Archegos case: Read More.
Litigation Deliverables for Prime Brokerage Disputes
Risk Narrative and Timeline
Trading positions, market context, decision points, governance actions, and responsibilities.
Risk and Financing Analysis
Collateral management, leverage, funding structures, and margin practices.
Chronologies
Detailed timelines of market events, decisions, and responsibilities.
Industry Expertise
Knowledge of margin regulation, capital requirements, and prime brokerage practices.
Hedge Fund Analysis
Investor relations, securities financing, portfolio strategy, and operational structures.
Why Law Firms Choose Navesink
- Senior practitioner-led analysis with no junior expert layering.
- Experience across derivatives, structured products, volatility, valuation, margin, and financing mechanics.
- Work product designed to withstand deposition and cross-examination.
- Expert witnesses with strong technical expertise and decades of market experience.
- In-house experts supported by a network of senior industry professionals.
- Expert witness reports, depositions, and testimony prepared for litigation.