Financial Services and Securities Litigation
Aptum combines a litigation specialty with deep knowledge of business operations to achieve effective commercial outcomes for boards, directors, investors, and financial services providers.
"Aptum offers clear and cogent advice. It provides effective communication. It seeks to resolve disputes on a practical, commercial basis. It is results driven rather than process driven."
What is financial services and securities litigation?
Financial services and securities litigation covers commercial disputes arising from the products, advice, conduct and regulation of Australia's financial system. The disputes can be brought by investors against providers, by providers against investors or counterparties, by regulators against licensees, or by third parties who relied on statements made in a market context and suffered loss.
Australia's regulatory framework sits across the Corporations Act 2001, the ASIC Act 2001, the Australian Consumer Law, the Banking Act 1959, the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Design and Distribution Obligations regime, the Financial Accountability Regime, and case law developed in the Federal Court and the ART. Any given dispute usually involves several of these regimes running together.
Aptum runs financial services and securities litigation for market-leading companies, banks, funds, executives and investors. Our commercial focus means we approach every matter with an eye on the commercial outcome, not just the legal one.
How can Aptum help?
Disputes relating to financial services and securities can involve threats to boards, directors and broader members of an organisation. Similarly, securities litigation can run parallel to internal investigations, requiring deep knowledge of business operations.
Aptum and its team has considerable experience and deep commercial expertise in all disputes relating to financial services and securities, including: banking disputes; investment disputes; misleading and deceptive conduct in financial services; and Corporations Law disputes involving product disclosure statements and capital raising.
Whether acting for market leading companies, banks, funds, executives, or investors, Aptum's broad financial expertise enables us to identify, understand and manage the critical issues in complex financial services disputes.
Our singular focus on working with commercial clients means our most important consideration is how to achieve the best commercial outcome, whether or not that pathway involves litigation.
Where Aptum runs financial services and securities litigation
-
01
Banking disputes.
Lender liability, bank guarantee disputes, mortgagee sale disputes, unfair contract term claims under the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act, breach of banker's duty of confidentiality, and disputes over the exercise of contractual discretion by lenders.
-
02
Investment disputes.
Investor claims against product issuers, fund managers and advisers, including unsuitable product recommendations, unauthorised trading, breach of mandate, and failure to comply with the Design and Distribution Obligations regime for retail investors.
-
03
Product Disclosure Statement and prospectus claims.
Corporations Act claims for false or misleading statements in a PDS, prospectus, or other disclosure document under sections 1041E, 1041H and Part 6D.2 (misleading statements about securities and financial products). Reliance-based claims by investors who acquired the product on the strength of the disclosure.
-
04
Capital raising disputes.
Disputes arising from equity raisings, debt raisings, and private placements, including alleged misstatements or omissions in offer documents, breach of underwriting agreements, dilution disputes, and Foreign Investment Review Board issues.
-
05
Misleading and deceptive conduct in financial services.
Section 1041H Corporations Act, section 12DA ASIC Act, and section 18 Australian Consumer Law claims for misleading or deceptive conduct in the supply of financial services or products. Run in the Federal Court where the amount justifies it, and in state Supreme Courts where it doesn't.
-
06
AFCA determinations and challenges.
Judicial review of AFCA determinations in the Federal Court, defence of AFCA proceedings by licensees, and strategic advice on when to accept or challenge an AFCA determination. Aptum acts for both complainants and financial services providers.
-
07
ASIC investigations and enforcement.
Response to ASIC s912A notices, s19 examinations, banning proceedings, licence conditions and cancellations, and civil penalty proceedings under Chapter 5C, Chapter 7, and Part 9.4B of the Corporations Act.
-
08
APRA disputes.
Prudential standard breaches, licensing disputes, and challenges to APRA directions for authorised deposit-taking institutions, insurers, and superannuation trustees.
-
09
Managed investment scheme disputes.
Responsible entity and trustee disputes, member class claims, disputes over unitholder rights, breaches of the constitution or compliance plan, and RE removal or replacement proceedings.
-
10
Superannuation and RSE disputes.
Trustee and RSE licensee disputes, insurance-in-super claim disputes, disputes over the exercise of trustee discretion, and challenges to trustee decisions on death benefit distributions.
-
11
Insurance disputes.
Coverage disputes with insurers, denial of indemnity claims, professional indemnity coverage disputes, and disputes over the operation of exclusion clauses. Often runs together with a professional negligence claim against the underlying insured.
-
12
Financial adviser and broker negligence.
Cross-referred to our Professional Negligence service where the claim turns on the adviser's or broker's standard of care.
-
13
Insolvency of financial services providers.
Voluntary administration, liquidation and receivership of financial services businesses, unfair preference claims by liquidators, and disputes over the ranking of investor and creditor claims. Cross-referred to our Complex Debt Recovery and Corporations Law and Directors Duty Disputes services where relevant.
The regulatory landscape
Financial services and securities disputes in Australia sit under a network of overlapping regulators. Knowing which regulator has jurisdiction over which conduct, and how their remedies interact, is a threshold question in every matter.
ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission).
Regulates financial services licensees, credit licensees, market operators, and the conduct of listed entities. Enforces the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act. Has civil, criminal and administrative powers.
APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority).
Prudential regulator of authorised deposit-taking institutions, insurers, and superannuation trustees. Sets prudential standards and can issue directions, licence conditions, and disqualifications.
AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority).
External dispute resolution body for consumer complaints against financial services providers. Determinations up to the monetary jurisdiction are binding on the licensee if the complainant accepts them.
AUSTRAC.
Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulator. Increasingly active in enforcement against financial services and gambling businesses.
The RBA and Treasury.
Not enforcement regulators, but their policy positions shape the regulatory environment in which disputes are decided.
The regulatory landscape moves. The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) commenced for banking in 2024 and extends to insurance and superannuation in 2025. The Design and Distribution Obligations regime has been operational since October 2021 and is now producing enforcement matters. AFCA's monetary jurisdiction was raised and the ART replaced the AAT in 2024. Aptum tracks these changes and factors them into every matter.
What stage is your financial services or securities matter at?
Where the matter sits determines which Aptum service is the right fit.
I have a dispute with a bank, fund manager, insurer or financial adviser.
This is the right page. Aptum runs financial services claims for investors, executives, and counterparties.
I'm a financial services provider facing an ASIC investigation, an AFCA complaint or a customer claim.
This is also the right page. Aptum acts for licensees and providers as well as claimants.
The dispute involves a directors' duty question or an oppression claim inside a financial services company.
You need our Corporations Law and Directors Duty Disputes service or Shareholder and Partnership Disputes service.
My adviser gave me negligent advice that caused a loss.
You may need our Professional Negligence service. Adviser negligence claims are grounded in the common law of negligence and often run alongside a Corporations Act misleading and deceptive conduct claim.
The financial services provider has become insolvent.
You need our Complex Debt Recovery service to protect your position in the winding-up or administration.
There's a class action against the financial services provider.
You need our Class Action Disputes service. Aptum defends financial services providers in respondent-side class action work.
I'm not sure which category I'm in.
Book the 15-minute diagnostic call below. We sort the pathway question in the call.
What Aptum brings to financial services and securities matters
Nigel Evans
Nigel Evans, Aptum's Managing Director and Co-Founder, leads Aptum's financial services and securities practice. Before founding Aptum, Nigel spent 11 years at the commercial Victorian Bar practising in commercial and securities disputes. He is listed in Best Lawyers in Australia for Commercial Litigation (2026) and recognised by Doyle's Guide as a Leading Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution Lawyer.
David Adason
Nigel is supported by David Adason, Aptum's Associate Director. David has practised commercial litigation exclusively across his career, including a period as Associate to a Justice of the Federal Court of Australia. Doyle's Guide has recognised David as a Rising Star in Commercial Litigation and Insolvency Law. David architected Aptum's project management framework and runs the day-to-day conduct of financial services and securities matters. His Federal Court background is directly relevant here — most substantive Corporations Act and ASIC Act proceedings are decided in the Federal Court.
That combination of Bar advocacy and Federal Court practice shapes how Aptum runs your matter.
Federal Court is where the substantive work happens
Corporations Act civil penalty proceedings, s1041H claims, Part 6D.2 disclosure claims, and ASIC enforcement matters are typically run in the Federal Court. The Court's Fast Track and expedited case management processes reward parties who file substantively strong pleadings and evidence-ready cases. That's how we run.
The commercial outcome is the outcome
Most financial services disputes settle. What gets litigated is what won't settle on terms the client can accept. Our job is to build a case strong enough that settlement happens on our terms, not the counterparty's. That's a different discipline from running matters to trial.
Regulator engagement is different from adversarial litigation
Where ASIC, APRA or AFCA is on the other side, the game is not adversarial civil litigation. It's regulatory engagement, with different rules on privilege, information gathering, and the appropriate use of confidentiality. We know when to engage cooperatively and when to draw the line.
Litigation funding for financial services and securities matters
Financial services claims are often the highest-quantum matters Aptum runs. Institutional counterparties, sophisticated investors, and closely-held financial services businesses all produce disputes where the amount at stake justifies substantial forensic investment.
Aptum is a market leader in facilitating funding solutions for financial services claimants. Where the case has strong prospects and adequate quantum, we can put a funded structure in front of the client at the value conversation stage. Funded matters are structured to preserve the client's control of the case.
"Nigel Evans, with David Adason and the Aptum team, are among Claim Funding Australia's most highly valued and trusted collaborators. Nigel and the team wield a significant power to weight ratio and deliver a sophisticated and highly effective method to litigation and dispute resolution."
— Jason Geisker, Head of Claims Funding Australia and Principal Lawyer at Maurice Blackburn
What makes Aptum different
Specialist expertise
All we do is litigate complex commercial and tax disputes.
Legal intelligence framework
Practical, ongoing risk assessment to focus on the essential.
Project management framework
Routine documented strategy through custom project management.
Recent matter outcomes
-
01
A director defends claims arising from the management of investment funds
A director became involved in a high-value dispute concerning the management of investment funds and related investment entities. Aptum assumed carriage of the matter after the client changed legal representation and developed a strategy to assess the claims, understand the client's exposure and identify practical pathways towards resolution. Aptum helped the client respond to complex claims involving significant financial exposure while positioning the dispute for an efficient and commercially focused resolution.
-
02
A financial services provider responds to a major regulatory investigation
Following a cybersecurity incident, a financial services provider faced a significant ASIC investigation, compulsory notices, and related consumer claims. Aptum led the response to ASIC's investigation, managed large-scale document production and privilege issues, and advised the business on regulatory exposure. Aptum helped contain regulatory risk, protect the client's financial services licence, and avoid escalation into enforcement proceedings while the investigation continued.
-
03
An executive defends claims in one of Australia's largest corporate fraud disputes
An individual was accused of participating in an alleged fraud involving more than 100 transactions and alleged losses exceeding $340 million. Aptum developed and executed the defence strategy in a highly complex Federal Court proceeding. Aptum helped the client defend substantial allegations in a high-profile proceeding, navigating significant legal and financial exposure while maintaining a focused and efficient litigation strategy.
What happens when you engage Aptum
Aptum runs every matter under our project management framework, with clear expectations on timing, cost and scope from the first call. Before you pay us anything, you get two points of contact, both free, so you know exactly where you stand. No surprises.
Value conversation (free)
If the matter is one we can help with, we bring you in for a second conversation, in person or over Teams, with the practice lead who would run your matter. You get the time and expertise of a senior practitioner who has handled matters like yours. Real expertise before you have committed to anything, not a fake triage.
Pathways assessment
Once you engage, you receive a documented strategy and a cost forecast aligned to the stages of your matter. For financial services and securities matters that typically means identifying which regulator (if any) has jurisdiction, framing the Corporations Act and Australian Consumer Law claims, deciding whether the matter runs in the Federal Court or a state Supreme Court, and (where relevant) putting a funder proposal in front of you.
Execution
This is the phase for the letter of demand, mediation, filing, discovery, expert evidence, and either settlement or trial. Where the matter involves regulator engagement, execution also covers ASIC or APRA notices, s19 examinations, and any related enforcement proceedings. Routine documented strategy. Regular communications. A relentless focus on the essential issues.
How we manage cost
Financial services litigation covers a wide cost range, from a discrete banking dispute to a multi-year Federal Court securities matter. What we commit to is one of our five client service promises: clear expectations as to the timing, costs and scope of our engagement, and updating those expectations as early as possible if anything changes.
Diagnostic call.
A 15-minute call to work out what you're facing and what your options actually are.
Estimate and scope.
Once engaged, you receive a documented strategy and a cost forecast aligned to the stages of your matter. Stage-based budgets, regular reporting, and any scope changes documented and agreed in writing.
Litigation funding options.
Where the case has strong prospects and adequate quantum, Aptum can put a funded structure in front of you at the value conversation stage. Funded matters are structured to preserve the client's control of the case.
Investment mindset.
Aptum approaches every matter with an investment mindset: the most practical outcome in the shortest possible time, at the least possible cost, with the biggest possible return.
Frequently asked questions
-
What is financial services litigation?
Financial services litigation is the resolution of disputes arising from the provision, distribution or regulation of financial products and services in Australia. Covers banking disputes, investment disputes, adviser and broker claims, disputes with fund managers and superannuation trustees, insurance coverage disputes, and disputes with regulators including ASIC, APRA and AFCA.
-
What is securities litigation?
Securities litigation is a subset of financial services litigation dealing with disputes about the offer, sale and secondary market trading of financial products regulated as securities under the Corporations Act. It includes prospectus and PDS misstatement claims, capital raising disputes, insider trading and market manipulation matters, and shareholder class actions.
-
Can I sue a bank for negligence in Australia?
Yes, but Australian courts have been careful about the scope of a bank's duty to its customer. Lender liability claims are narrower than in some other jurisdictions. The most productive framings usually combine an alleged breach of a specific contractual duty with a misleading and deceptive conduct claim under s12DA of the ASIC Act or s18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Aptum assesses the framing at the diagnostic call.
-
How do I challenge an AFCA determination?
AFCA determinations are binding on the licensee if the complainant accepts them, and are not appealable in the ordinary sense. However, they can be judicially reviewed in the Federal Court on limited grounds (jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, or failure to comply with AFCA's rules). The application must be made within a tight window. Aptum has run judicial review of AFCA determinations for licensees.
-
What is misleading and deceptive conduct in financial services?
Section 1041H of the Corporations Act, s12DA of the ASIC Act, and s18 of the Australian Consumer Law all prohibit misleading or deceptive conduct in the supply of financial services or products. The prohibitions are broadly worded and don't require proof of intent, meaning conduct can be actionable even where the provider did not know the statement was misleading. Reliance and causation still have to be proven.
-
What is the limitation period for a financial services claim?
Six years for most Corporations Act and Australian Consumer Law claims (with variations by jurisdiction and cause of action). Some claims run from the date of the loss, others from the date of the conduct. Where the loss was concealed or latent, the limitation period may extend. Given the complexity, treat any claim within a year of a potential limitation date as urgent.
-
Can I sue for losses from bad financial advice?
Yes, if the advice fell below the standard of a competent adviser, caused you a loss, and the loss is recoverable at law. Financial adviser claims are typically run under three parallel framings: common law negligence, breach of the best interests duty under s961B of the Corporations Act, and misleading and deceptive conduct under s1041H. Aptum runs adviser claims both directly and cross-referred with our Professional Negligence service.
-
What is the Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) regime?
The DDO regime, operational since October 2021, requires product issuers and distributors of retail financial products to define a target market for the product and ensure distribution is consistent with the target market determination. ASIC has been increasingly active in DDO enforcement, and non-compliance is now a common ground of claim in retail investor disputes.
-
What is the Financial Accountability Regime (FAR)?
FAR replaced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) and commenced for banks in March 2024. It extends to insurers and superannuation trustees from March 2025. FAR imposes accountability, conduct and deferred remuneration obligations on accountable persons at the entity. Regulator investigations under FAR are becoming a live issue for executives at APRA-regulated entities.
-
How much does financial services litigation cost?
It depends on the complexity, the forum, and the depth of expert evidence required. A discrete banking dispute may resolve for under $75,000 in fees. A Federal Court securities matter with multiple experts and multi-year discovery can run into the millions. At the pathways assessment stage we give you a stage-based cost forecast so you know each stage before you commit. Where the case is fundable, we can put a funded structure in front of you.
Offices
Aptum services financial services and securities clients across Australia from three offices.
Thinking on financial services and securities litigation
Aptum publishes regularly on financial services and securities issues.
Get clarity on your financial services or securities matter
The dispute is complex. The regulator may be involved. The commercial stakes are real. The one thing you can't afford to do is wait to see what happens.
In a 15-minute call, Aptum's financial services and securities team will tell you exactly where you stand, whether litigation is realistic, and what the pathway to a commercial outcome looks like. No surprises.
Call (03) 7020 9230
Book your value conversation