A Bermuda segregated accounts company is among investors suing Wilmington Trust and loan servicer Vervent over losses tied to the collapse of Tricolor Holdings, an American subprime auto lender.

Superior Risk Solutions (SAC) Ltd is listed as a plaintiff in an amended complaint filed last week in New York and made public by OffshoreAlert.

The company is one of more than 30 plaintiffs claiming that Wilmington and Vervent failed to protect holders of notes issued through seven Tricolor auto-loan securitisations.

The complaint does not state how much Superior Risk Solutions individually lost. It says the plaintiffs together hold more than $270 million of notes, about 30 per cent of the outstanding balance across the seven trusts.

Superior Risk Solutions is a Bermudian-based SAC, meaning a structure that can be used by captive insurers and other risk-financing vehicles.

Tricolor, a Texas-based lender serving borrowers with limited access to traditional credit, filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in September last year amid fraud allegations and government investigations.

Daniel Chu, its founder and former chief executive, faces federal criminal charges and has pleaded not guilty.

The investors allege that Tricolor fraudulently pledged the same auto loans to multiple lenders and securitisations, while also creating loans that did not exist.

Bankruptcy investigations cited in the complaint found more than $675 million of loans were either fictitious or had already been pledged elsewhere.

Wilmington was custodian for the loan documents and as trustee for the securitisations. The complaint alleges that Wilmington repeatedly certified that it had received original documents that did not exist and failed to flag missing or incomplete records.

The suit also claims that Wilmington and Vervent did not pass on money to investors after Tricolor collapsed, even though the trusts had cash reserves and kept collecting payments on loans not caught up in the fraud dispute.

It says five of the seven investment vehicles were put into default after interest payments were missed.

That moved senior investors to the front of the line for repayment, making it less likely that junior investors will recover their money.

The claims have not been tested in court. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged breaches of contract and, against Wilmington, alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.