Regulatory Disputes Lawyers

Our expert team of regulatory disputes lawyers provides advice to clients preparing for any interaction with regulators or addressing any exposure to civil, criminal and administrative sanctions across a wide range of business activities.

Regulatory disputes law firm

The market represents a critical cog in the workings of the global financial system, and as such finds itself the focus of a fast-evolving regulatory regime. In an environment where regulation continues to become more and more demanding, we specialise in advising major financial institutions, global corporations, professional and public bodies on all aspects of regulatory investigations and disputes.

Our global presence enables us to provide comprehensive, multijurisdictional legal advice at the times most critical to our clients who we help with strategic counsel to navigate the complexities of the various regulatory challenges they are faced with.

Our team of seasoned regulatory disputes lawyers can be trusted for unparalleled expertise in regulatory disputes, ensuring optimal resolutions. A regulatory disputes lawyer at Appleby is able to provide expert advice across a wide range of business regulation, including:

  • Anti-money laundering
  • Anti-bribery & corruption
  • Competition law
  • Data protection
  • eGaming
  • Financial services regulation
  • Sanctions and export controls

Commercial regulatory disputes

As a leading international law firm, we specialise in a comprehensive range of services tailored for commercial regulatory disputes. Our highly adept team of offshore lawyers possesses extensive commercial expertise in navigating the intricacies of regulatory disputes and providing strategic advice to safeguard our clients’ interests. From proactive compliance strategies to dispute resolution, Appleby offers a full spectrum of legal services that address the dynamic regulatory and economic landscape.

Our commitment to excellence ensures clients receive tailored solution for their specific needs. Whether you need the advice and support of a regulatory disputes lawyer for guidance on commercial compliance or require Court representation, our firm is dedicated to delivering legal proficiency and client-focused advocacy in the specialist field of commercial regulatory disputes.

SPOTLIGHT

Regulatory disputes Jersey

With a deep understanding of the island’s legal landscape, our regulatory disputes Jersey team regularly supports clients through complex regulatory challenges. Recognised by The Legal 500 as a “well-established Jersey law firm in all the big cases”, we can provide tailored counsel to businesses, financial institutions, and corporations facing regulatory disputes in Jersey.

Our Jersey regulatory dispute lawyers are able to combine global insight from our nine other international locations with local expertise for optimal outcomes.

More news
JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
18 Jun 2026

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers

In Peakwave Investment Management Ltd v Energy Evolution GP Ltd [2026] CIGC (FSD) 22, the Grand Court clarified the scope of joint provisional liquidators' powers following their appointment. In particular, the Court confirmed that the appointment of provisional liquidators does not automatically displace existing directors.

Appleby-Website-Cayman2
17 Jun 2026

Property, Fairness and the Constitution: The Grand Court Marks the Boundaries of Freedom of Information

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has overturned a decision of the Ombudsman in a successful judicial review brought by Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. (CUC), represented by Appleby.

Appleby-Website-Employment-and-Immigration
12 Jun 2026

The Cost of Getting Employee Departures Wrong: Five Common Pitfalls for Bermuda Employers

Employee departures are an inevitable part of running a business, but the way they are managed can have significant legal, financial and operational consequences. In Bermuda, employers who approach terminations without adequate preparation may expose themselves to unnecessary disputes, regulatory issues, and reputational harm. Whether an employee is being dismissed for performance reasons, made redundant or departing as part of a negotiated exit, by recognizing the following common mistakes and taking a proactive approach, organizations can manage departures more effectively and reduce risk.

Website-Code-BVI
25 May 2026

Back to Basics- Disputes Series

COMPELLING THE INNOCENT: NORWICH PHARMACAL RELIEF IN THE BVI Norwich Pharmacal relief can be a key, strategic tool to assist litigants with early-stage investigation where a BVI company is involved in “wrongdoing” that is the subject of ongoing or prospective litigation either in the BVI or abroad.  A Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order in the BVI is typically made against the registered agent of a “wrongdoer” BVI company, unbeknownst to the company itself, compelling the registered agent to provide information and documentation on the company’s directors, shareholders, ultimate beneficial owners and/or assets.  It is a flexible remedy but it typically enables an applicant party to obtain disclosure to identify the protagonists controlling the “wrongdoer” BVI company and details of its assets necessary in order to pursue their claim or to enforce and execute a judgment. Most frequently, relief is given in aid of foreign proceedings where it is needed to properly plead out a potential claim, to support eventual enforcement of a foreign judgment and/or to obtain or police an injunction.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
14 May 2026

Arbitrating shareholders’ disputes and beyond – the Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirms its non-interventionist and pro-arbitration stance

On 08 May 2026, the Mauritian Supreme Court, sitting as the panel of Designated Judges appointed under the International Arbitration Act 2008 (IAA), delivered an important judgment in Intermediate Investment Holdings Ltd v Imevbore & Ors 2026 SCJ 186 (IIHL Case). The Supreme Court declined to award costs sought by the Respondents following the Applicant’s withdrawal of an application for an interim injunction.