‘Lifelong impacts’: Deadline looms for compensation claims amid Shield and First Guardian fund collapse

Thousands of Australians who lost money in the demise of First Guardian and Shield superannuation are running out of time to lodge a claim for compensation. About 11,000 people lost an estimated $1.1bn in retirement savings when managed investment schemes Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund collapsed in 2024. While ASIC has indicated about 5800 people invested into Shield and 6000 into First Guardian, many people have no idea they’ve been invested into the scheme at all. The businesses were shut down and seized by liquidators, who were tasked with finding and selling all assets and paying back debts. Now the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) is working through thousands of complaints as it works to pay back those who lost their savings. But the deadline is looming, with the chance to lodge a complaint against some businesses ending at 5pm on March 31, 2026. Why is there a deadline? Australians can only lodge a complaint about a business that is a current member of AFCA. Businesses that shut down have one-to-two years before their AFCA membership expires, therefore shortening the time frame for affected customers to lodge a complaint. Most people who make a successful complaint to AFCA are entitled to up to $150,000 back. However, the deadline for complaints is fast-approaching, and those who miss out may never see a cent again. “There are hard deadlines, and once they pass, people may miss out on compensation,” Super Consumers Australia chief executive officer Xavier O’Halloran said. So far, about 2100 Australians have lodged complaints to AFCA. However, about 11,000 Australians are believed to have lost funds due to the collapse, with 9000 yet to lodge a claim. Reports from The Australian indicate some investors lodged multiple complaints to the watchdog, resulting in fewer than 1000 total complaints. An AFCA spokesman told NewsWire that as of February 10, the authority received 843 complaints about Shield Master Fund and 1319 complaints about First Guardian. Within these figures, 167 complaints had been lodged about both funds. AFCA chief ombudsman and chief executive officer David Locke said the First Guardian and Shield collapse complaints will be a “key focus” this year. “We have now issued 44 decisions, including five lead decisions, and have 500 simultaneous investigations underway, and we remain firmly committed to progressing these matters as quickly as we can,” he explained on Thursday. Website launched to support First Guardian and Shield victims With a little over a month remaining before the door slams shut on future compensation claims, ASIC said in early February it would take “further steps” to help Australians affected by the loss. Almost 50 people in ASIC are working across 26 investigations, which they claim are among the “largest and most complex cases in ASIC’s history”. Services include links to the website takeyoursuperback, which has been independently developed by Super Consumers Australia and allows Australians to lodge a complaint regarding their lost super. The website was funded by ASIC with the goal of assisting customers who have been impacted by funds’ collapse. Those wishing to lodge a complaint are encouraged to gather information and supporting documents about the investments, including the name of the company, the reason for the money loss, and the amount of money lost. From there, customers can lodge a complaint to AFCA, which will determine if it is within its jurisdiction. Warning signs of ‘dodgy’ schemes to watch Shield and First Guardian Master Funds were closed to new investors, with liquidators seizing control over the businesses upon their collapse. Mr O’Halloran said the schemes often “prey on people who are just looking to do the right thing and get on top of their super”. “They often start by simply offering a super health check, but can end in people losing their life savings in high fees and dodgy investment,” he said. He said there were several red flags that the schemes wave that may go unnoticed, such as sellers putting pressure on potential customers to make a quick decision about their super and signing documents over the phone. The sellers will also frequently tell the potential customers that heir super isn’t performing well or has hidden fees that may impact superannuation growth. Mr O’Halloran warned that the scheme may be a scam if someone calls out of the blue and offers a “free super health check” or offer comparison services. The same can happen after clicking an online ad or pop-up. During these calls, they may offer “much better” returns, such as promising more than 11 per cent per annum over a 10-year basis. Other red flags include not spending time speaking to a financial adviser or being told to pay suspiciously high advice fees without explaining value. On average, the cost of an annual financial adviser is about $4700. “Decisions about super can have lifelong impacts. It is far too important to leave to cookie-cutter advice over the phone,” he said. “Super is often people’s second biggest source of wealth outside of the family home and the consumer protections need to reflect that.”