A colossal US$4.6 billion (NZ$7.7 billion) class action against global wealth-tech behemoth FNZ has opened in the New Zealand High Court this week, immediately sparking a fierce jurisdictional skirmish over whether the legal battleground should be Wellington or London.
Billed as one of the largest corporate class actions in Asia-Pacific history, the lawsuit has pitted a group of roughly 200 current and former employee-shareholders against FNZ Group and 17 of its current and former directors.
The Legal Teams and The Dispute
The disgruntled staff-shareholders are being represented by litigation firm Meredith Connell. In an effort to shield individual employees from potential retribution, the plaintiffs have advanced the claim through an entity known as Kiwi GP.
The defendants include FNZ founder Adrian Durham and high-profile board representatives from some of the world’s most powerful institutional investors, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), Singapore’s Temasek, Generation Investment Management (chaired by Al Gore), and Motive Partners (featuring current FNZ CEO Blythe Masters).
At the core of the dispute are allegations of minority shareholder oppression and breaches of directors’ duties under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993. The plaintiffs allege that three controversial capital raises executed in 2024 and 2025—which injected US$1.5 billion into the company—were carried out on uncommercial terms. According to the claim, these transactions included the issuance of highly favorable preference shares and “penny warrants” to institutional backers, effectively obliterating the value of common employee shares and transferring an estimated US$4.6 billion in wealth to the institutional investors.
The Jurisdiction Clash
While FNZ now operates globally with more than US$2 trillion in retail pension and investment assets administered on its platform, the company was founded in Wellington in 2003 and remains legally registered in New Zealand.
This corporate structure is the foundation of the current dispute over jurisdiction. The employee-shareholders insist the New Zealand High Court is the appropriate venue because the company is subject to the Companies Act 1993 and local tax laws. Meanwhile, FNZ’s formidable defense strategy has involved multiple legal tactics to stay the proceedings, arguing that the hearings should appropriately take place in London, where much of the company’s executive operations are now centered.
As per High Court rules, the jurisdiction dispute is currently being heard in chambers by a Wellington judge.
What’s Next
Through their external legal counsel, FNZ management has vigorously denied the claims, describing them as “simplistic and inaccurate.” The defense asserts that the 2024 and 2025 capital raises were “absolutely necessary and critical” for the company’s survival and continued global expansion, adding that the alternative to securing the funding would have been catastrophic for all shareholders.
For the New Zealand legal fraternity—and the global fintech market watching closely—the coming weeks will determine whether this multi-billion-dollar corporate showdown proceeds in Wellington, bringing unprecedented scrutiny to the governance and equity maneuvers of one of New Zealand’s most successful startups.
