Bamboo Insurance Services Inc., a home insurance firm controlled by private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, has postponed its initial public offering, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Midvale, Utah-based company cited market conditions for the move, the people said, asking not to be identified as the information isn’t public. The listing could be revived in the future, the people said.
Representatives for CVC and Bamboo didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Bamboo was founded in 2018 and valued at $1.75 billion when CVC-advised funds purchased a controlling stake in the firm from White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd. last year. The delay is the second in recent days, after Holtec Nuclear Corp. postponed its own IPO, also citing market conditions.
US IPOs this year have delivered the highest volume since 2021, with $161.4 billion raised excluding blank-check firms and other financial vehicles, data compiled by Bl
oomberg show. Performance has been volatile, however, with shares of five of the 10 largest listings this year trading below their respective IPO prices. This year’s offerings have returned a weighted average 13% gain, below the S&P 500 Index’s roughly 15% return.
Orion180 Insurance Group Inc., a specialty homeowners and flood insurer, raised $240 million in an IPO last week and remains mired below its listing price.
The offering was being led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley. The shares were expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BMB.
See more beautiful photo albums Here >>>
Jessica Dinicola-Ortiz alleged GEICO contracted to pay her and class members the actual cash value for their totaled cars, but GEICO’s condition adjustment unlawfully changed that value. She alleged that GEICO underpaid her, and she further maintained that GEICO similarly illegally adjusted the values for potentially tens of thousands of other New Jersey claimants.
The GEICO policy defined ACV as “the replacement cost of the auto or property less depreciation or betterment.” GEICO determines a vehicle’s ACV using a report from CCC Intelligent Solutions that calculates a vehicle’s ACV based on the computed values of purportedly comparable vehi
cles recently sold or listed for sale within the insured’s geographic area. CCC starts with the average retail price of vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the insured vehicle. CCC then makes “adjustments” to that base value that may be upward or downward based on factors such as options, mileage, and others.
That adjustment was the focus of the underlying claim in the class action case.
Renee Marie Bumb, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, found that Dinicola-Ortiz could proceed with her individual claim alleging that GEICO underpaid her but that the class action against the insurer could not be certified.
The judge had two recent federal appeals rulings to support her decision to deny certification.
Judge Bumb looked to a 2024 Third Circuit Court of Appeals opinion (Lewis v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co.) that held only people who received less than their totaled vehicles’ ACV have standing to bring ACV claims. Even if the insurer’s process is flawed, standing demands an actual, not theoretical, injury. “Windfalls are not actionable,” the court noted.
