The SPAC market is showing clear signs of life again, but it’s not the same market retail agents saw just a few years ago. Activity is increasing, capital is returning, and transaction pipelines are rebuilding. At the same time, underwriting discipline, structural complexity, and liability exposure remain firmly in place.
For retail agents, this creates both opportunity and risk. The deals are back, but so are the nuances that determine whether a placement actually performs when it matters.
THE SPAC MARKET IS STABILIZING BUT IT’S MORE DISCIPLINED
After a period of volatility, SPAC activity has regained momentum. In 2025, SPAC IPO issuance rebounded significantly following a sharp slowdown in 2022–2023, with issuance levels more than doubling year-over-year in certain periods as market conditions improved.1 Forecasts from market analysts suggest continued growth in 2026 as capital markets reopen and deal pipelines strengthen.2
At the same time, a growing pipeline of private companies continues to explore SPAC transactions as an alternative route to liquidity, particularly in sectors like AI, energy transition, and healthcare.2
This is not a return to the speculative environment of prior cycles. Instead, the market is more balanced, with stronger institutional sponsorship, improved regulatory clarity, and more disciplined investor expectations.
For agents, that means more opportunity, but also more scrutiny on how deals are structured and insured.
THE SPAC D&O MARKET
D&O premiums for SPACs have declined significantly from peak pricing levels seen in 2020–2021, driven by increased carrier competition and improving litigation trends. However, lower pricing does not equate to reduced underwriting discipline.
Carriers remain highly selective, with a sharp focus on:
- Sponsor and management team experience
- Governance frameworks
- Disclosure quality
- Financial controls
- Deal structure and committed financing
Many retail agents are surprised by the disconnect between pricing and scrutiny. While upfront premiums may appear competitive, insurers are increasingly focused on total program economics, including extended reporting periods (ERP), which can materially impact overall cost.
The takeaway: price is no longer the primary differentiator; structure is.
WHY SIDE A REMAINS CENTRAL TO SPAC RISK STRATEGY
Side A coverage continues to play a critical role in SPAC placements and is increasingly central to program design.
SPACs typically operate with capital held in trust accounts, limiting access to funds for indemnification. This creates a scenario where directors and officers may face personal exposure if claims arise, particularly in insolvency or post-transaction scenarios.
As a result, many insureds are shifting toward Side A or Side A-heavy structures to preserve capital while protecting individuals.
However, this introduces tradeoffs. While Side A protects individuals, it does not provide entity coverage. Because securities class actions frequently name the entity, this can create a meaningful exposure gap.
Even where full coverage is purchased, dedicated Side A (including Side A DIC) remains essential to protect individuals if underlying limits are exhausted.
LITIGATION TRENDS: LOWER FREQUENCY, STILL MEANINGFUL EXPOSURE
SPAC litigation has declined from peak levels, but exposure remains. SPAC-related cases accounted for approximately 2% of all securities class action filings in 2025.3
Settlement data reflects a more favorable, though still material, risk environment, with median SPAC settlements at $11 million compared to $19.5 million for non-SPAC cases, and average settlements at $31.4 million versus $41.9 million.3 Despite these improvements, exposure remains significant.
Claims are still driven by mismatches between projections and performance, disclosure-related issues, and conflicts between sponsors and investors. Importantly, defense costs remain a major driver of loss even when cases are dismissed.
As plaintiff firms refine their strategies, litigation is becoming more targeted and less likely to fail early in the process.
PROGRAM DESIGN IS WHERE PLACEMENTS SUCCEED OR FAIL
In today’s SPAC environment, the difference between a successful placement and a problematic one often comes down to structure.
Key considerations include:
- Aligning coverage with transaction complexity
- Addressing indemnification limitations
- Structuring efficient layered towers
- Negotiating ERP terms upfront
One of the most common pitfalls retail agents face is focusing on upfront pricing without accounting for ERP costs. Because ERP coverage is critical post-transaction, failure to pre-negotiate competitive terms can create friction, or even delay, at closing. Additionally, submissions lacking key documentation, particularly a finalized S-1, can significantly slow or limit underwriting engagement.
The reality is that SPAC placements are time-sensitive, transaction-driven risks. Structure, timing, and preparation all play a role in execution.
WHAT RETAIL AGENTS SHOULD BE DOING DIFFERENTLY RIGHT NOW
To effectively navigate this market, retail agents should:
- Engage early in the transaction process
- Prepare detailed submissions, including S-1 documentation
- Set expectations around pricing vs. coverage tradeoffs
- Focus on structure not just premium savings
- Anticipate underwriting scrutiny on leadership and governance
Agents should also be prepared to advise clients on both sides of the transaction, from SPAC formation to de-SPAC execution, where exposures and coverage needs evolve.
BOTTOM LINE
SPAC activity is returning, but with more discipline, more scrutiny, and more complexity. While pricing has improved, risk has not disappeared. Coverage gaps, structural decisions, and underwriting nuances will determine whether a program performs when a claim arises.
For retail agents, this is not a transactional placement. It is a strategic one.
CRC Specialty is built for this environment. With deep experience across SPAC D&O, Side A, and transaction-driven risks, CRC helps agents navigate evolving underwriting expectations, structure programs that align with real-world exposures, and execute placements efficiently in time-sensitive deal environments.
As SPAC activity accelerates, the agents who succeed will be those who understand the difference between price and protection — and who have the right wholesale partner to deliver both. Connect with your CRC Specialty broker to ensure your next SPAC placement is structured to perform.
CONTRIBUTOR
- Matt Gertz is an Assistant Vice President with ARC Excess & Surplus, LLC, a CRC Group company, based in New York, where he focuses on D&O liability and complex transaction-driven risks, including SPAC placements.
ENDNOTES
- 2025 SPAC IPO Market Data, SPAC Research. https://www.spacresearch.com
- Global IPO Trends Report, EY. https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/ipo/trends
- Securities Class Action Settlements 2025 Year-End Review, Cornerstone Research. https://www.cornerstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Securities-Class-Action-Filings-2025-Year-in-Review.pdf