The entire dispute reduces to one question
How much reinsurance premium did Aegon actually receive in Korea, Japan, and Australia? That figure, applied to the contractual rate, determines exactly what commission Harrison is owed.
"Aegon has the answer, admits it has the answer, and refuses to give it. The figures presented here are calculated on Aegon's own declared data — they are a floor, not a ceiling. No innocent party withholds the evidence that proves its innocence."
— Harrison v Aegon / Transamerica Entities, NSW Supreme Court Commercial ListThe figures on this page are the answer to a mechanical calculation: apply the agreed contractual rate to the reinsurance premiums actually received. The only reason these figures are estimates rather than exact is that the Defendants hold the underlying premium data and have not produced it.
If the data were produced, quantum would be determined arithmetically. These figures represent the best available derivation from admitted and documentary evidence in the absence of that production. The Defendants admitted in writing through their own senior management that the data exists and was not provided to the commission calculation function. No explanation has been provided.
The contractual rate — how 1.875% is derived
The EA commission rate converges to 1.875% of gross written premium across all territories through a formula confirmed in Aegon's own correspondence.
"In Korea, since we have decided to only fund 2.7% GWP from GPR to IMAP, but to ensure that Keith receives the pre-determined commission of 1.875%, we increase Keith's commission % on IMAP commission to 69.45%."
The word pre-determined is Aegon's own. Written by their own General Counsel, it confirms 1.875% was a fixed, agreed entitlement across all territories — not an estimate, not subject to unilateral revision, and not cohort-dependent.
Two concurrent commission streams — not alternatives
Deed of Guarantee — 121+ days in default
Demand was made on TLIC (NAIC 69078) on 25 November 2025. The compliance deadline was 3 December 2025. TLIC has not paid, not responded, and not disputed the demand. The Deed is presently enforceable by summary judgment — TLIC has no merits defence, only quantum is contestable. The 12-year specialty limitation period runs to December 2037, making this the primary and limitation-proof cause of action.
Defendants and basis of liability
| Defendant | Full name | Basis of liability | Exposure |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Defendant | Transamerica Insurance Marketing Asia Pacific Pty Limited (TIMAP) (ACN 082 524 730) | EA and CA primary liability — commission calculation and payment obligation | $100,743,642 |
| Second Defendant | AIA / Aegon Insights Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 082 524 785), now Hallmark Australia Services Pty Ltd | Joint and several — EA commission chain; revenue chain participation | $100,743,642 |
| Third Defendant | TLIC (NAIC 69078) — Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Iowa | Deed of Guarantee and Undertaking — unconditional guarantee; summary judgment pathway; 12-year specialty limitation to Dec 2037 | $100,743,642 |
| All three defendants jointly and severally liable. Aegon N.V. and Aegon Ltd excluded as named defendants — right to join reserved. | $100,743,642 | ||
Explore the damages in depth — click any section below
Damages scenario model — select a view to explore
The model pre-calculates damages for every possible outcome — three traditional views and seven layer-based judicial combinations. Click any card below to see the full breakdown: principal, interest, market split, EA / CA contract split, and charts. The layer methodology explainer at the bottom sets out how the three claims interact.
The layer framework mirrors how courts decide cases. Rather than one composite number, it maps the damages consequence of every possible judicial finding. The Court may uphold any single claim, any combination, or all three.
Restores the Korea rate to 1.875% GWP on Aegon’s own declared figures. No other changes. No growth assumptions. No cohort adjustment. Purely: apply the correct rate to the numbers Aegon itself declared.
Data required: Aegon’s own declared Korea GWP — already in evidence. No expert, no growth assumption, no actuarial input.
The contracts define the commission base as Reinsurance Premium paid or due from Insurers under named reinsurance treaties — a closed definition. Only refunds and premium tax are permitted deductions. There is no authority anywhere in the contractual suite for certificate-level cohort segmentation.
Ten independently dispositive grounds defeat the cohort argument (Doc 3.3). The defined business is the named reinsurance treaty, not downstream consumer certificates. The continuation trigger is objective receipt of reinsurance premium. Any modification required written agreement across three instruments — none was ever executed.
Seven years of aggregate operations (1998–2005) confirm the contractual meaning. The cohort restriction was invented 24 hours after Harrison’s termination, without notice or amendment. Aegon’s own insurers admitted they “were not able to provide the split” (CC-8, Feb 2022).
The contracts were unambiguous: commission was to be calculated on actual reinsurance premiums received. Aegon held those figures month by month throughout the entire 20-year period. It chose not to use them, substituting a mechanical decay formula without actuarial basis or contractual authority.
Aegon’s own admission (CC-15, August 2024) confirms the actual data “was available but not shared with the commission payment team.” All four instruments in the suite use identical actual-receipt language. None uses the word estimate, formula, persistency factor, lapse, or decay.
Aegon’s remedy: Produce the actual bordereaux. The conservative 5% growth proxy is replaced by actuals on production. Basis: Chaplin v Hicks [1911]; Jones v Dunkel (1959).
No re-calculation required for any outcome.
| # | Judicial outcome | Claim 1Korea rate | Claim 2Cohort | Claim 3Estimates | Layer | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | No claims upheld | ○ | ○ | ○ | Aegon baseline | — |
| 1 | Korea rate only | ● | ○ | ○ | Layer 1 | $11.4M |
| 2 | Cohort correction only | ○ | ● | ○ | Layer 2 | $70.1M |
| 3 | Estimates correction only | ○ | ○ | ● | Layer 3 | $37.3M |
| 4 | Korea rate + cohort | ● | ● | ○ | Layer 1+2 | $81.5M |
| 5 | Korea rate + estimates | ● | ○ | ● | Layer 1+3 | $48.7M |
| 6 | Cohort dismissed — estimates correction on Aegon’s own restricted figures | ○ | ○ | ● | Layer 2+3 | $107.4M |
| 7 | All three claims upheld | ● | ● | ● | Layer 1+2+3 | $118.8M |
Outcome 6 is strategically critical: even if the cohort claim is dismissed, Claim 3 corrects Aegon’s decay distortion on its own restricted figures — recovering $107.4M, which is 96% of the pleaded claim without the cohort argument.
Every figure is calculated on Aegon’s own declared data — it is a floor, not a ceiling. When Aegon produces actual bordereaux, figures will be recalculated and will be higher. Claims 1 and 2 are proved on Aegon’s data already in evidence. Only Claim 3 uses a conservative proxy — because Aegon refuses to produce the records that would replace it.
Doc 3.3 | Cohort Rebuttal — Ten Independent Grounds | March 2026 | Series 3
- Part 1 — The one questionThe central proposition: how much premium did Aegon actually receive?
- Part 2 — The two contractsEA and CA streams explained; the 1.875% rate derivation; Eubanks letter CC-1
- Part 5 — The Deed of GuaranteeTLIC as successor guarantor; demand date; default period; limitation expiry Dec 2037
- Part 7 — Series 7 document mapNavigation guide across all ten Series 7 documents
- Part 1 — Purpose and statusCourt-facing summary; conservative basis certification
- Part 2 — The claim at a glance$100,743,642 total; EA/CA split; interest as percentage of principal
- Part 3 — How each dollar arisesComponent-by-component construction of the total figure
- Part 7 — Cross-reference map to SOCLinks each quantum component to its Statement of Claim paragraph