Skip to content
Sub practice
Sub practice

Banking, Finance and Securities Disputes

Allen & Overy is recognised by the market as a top tier practice for finance litigation and regulatory disputes. Our experienced and specialist lawyers work as an integrated team across the world and excel at cross-border and multi-jurisdictional disputes

We provide first rate business, product and transaction knowledge which is aligned with our pre-eminent global finance practice.

As advisers to the world’s leading international financial institutions we support clients in their litigation and dispute resolution needs, from major investigations and high-profile disputes to reputational risk management issues. Our clients include the market leading investment banks, asset managers, hedge funds, private banks and retail banks.

Our global network and experience – along with our extensive knowledge that comes from having unrivalled banking, capital markets and derivatives practices in the world’s main financial hubs – sets us apart from others in the industry. Our dedicated Banking, Finance and Securities Disputes team work closely with our transactional specialists to enable us to able to quickly spot business trends that might lead to risk for our clients. We can then organise rapid and robust strategies to enforce rights, recover money or assets, or defend financial and reputational claims.

Many of our cases involve working with colleagues across different jurisdictions. For example, in 2014 around 59% of our finance litigation cases involved lawyers from two or more of our offices, demonstrating the cross-border collaboration between our litigators around the world. As a result, we are able to manage disputes and coordinate proceedings brought in more than one jurisdiction and across varied legal cultures.

News & insights

Publications: 16 AUGUST 2019

State of play: a review of sovereign immunity cases

A tanker truck, converted into a bomb, was detonated near the north face of building #131 at the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia shortly before 10 pm on 25 June 1996, according to the 2001 U.S. federal grand jury indictment. It killed 19 U.S. service men and injured hundreds. Some 23 years later, in Heiser et al v Iran, the English High Court had to consider whether 12 U.S. civil judgments relating to this and other terrorist incidents could be enforced in the UK. It decided they could not.

Read more

Publications: 16 JULY 2019

Debt programme updates/establishments and the new Prospectus Directive (PD) regime – Update

There continue to be inconsistencies in the approach taken by the competent authorities when interpreting some of the requirements under the new PD regime. 

Read more
Ribbon blue

Publications: 09 MAY 2019

Disclosure obligations override foreign criminal law breach

The Court of Appeal has ordered production of unredacted documents, subject to confidentiality measures, in the interests of ensuring a fair trial, even though complying with this order would place the disclosing party in breach of Iranian criminal law.  The case illustrates how the English court exercises its discretion to make such an order, concluding here that the importance of the documents to the fair disposal of the proceedings outweighed the risk of prosecution: Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019] EWCA Civ 449

Read more

Publications: 09 MAY 2019

Breach of warranty regarding projections as labour and other costs not included

Triumph v Primus included all the usual elements of a warranty dispute: an attempt to avoid the limitations by arguing a claim was not a “warranty claim”; an argument over disclosure; and a defence around the service and contents of the notice of breach. Ultimately though, it was a warranty about the careful preparation of projections that was the seller’s downfall: Triumph Controls UK Ltd & anr v Primus International Holding Co & ors [2019] EWCH 565 (TCC)

Read more


Related content