Scales of justice representing securities litigation

The Evolving Landscape of Securities Litigation and Financial Disputes

Feb 06, 2026

Securities litigation is undergoing a quiet but consequential transformation. The rise of artificial intelligence and a shifting regulatory environment are changing not only the types of claims being brought, but also how plaintiffs plead cases, how regulators shape and enforce rules, and how companies manage litigation risk. Together, these forces are challenging traditional approaches that no longer fit the realities of today’s market.

As these dynamics evolve, companies and their advisors are being pushed to rethink disclosure practices, litigation strategy, and the role of experts earlier than ever in the process. Precision, innovation, and the ability to translate complex financial and market data into defensible positions have become increasingly critical, particularly at the motion to dismiss stage, where cases are often won or lost outright.

We sat down with Eric Poer, Managing Director at Secretariat International, an expert advisory and disputes consulting firm whose professionals have worked on some of the most impactful matters across the globe, to discuss the changing landscape of securities litigation.

Q: Can you tell us about Secretariat and your role within the firm?

A: Secretariat is a leading advisory firm that specializes in disputes and investigations with more than 700 experts and advisors worldwide. Our experts have been engaged by most of the Am Law 100 law firms and have completed more than 10,000 engagements on six continents. We operate strategically, growing by selectively hiring top-tier professionals who not only bring deep subject matter expertise, but also fit a highly collaborative and entrepreneurial culture.

I now lead Secretariat’s securities litigation and complex financial disputes practices. Our work sits at the intersection of financial markets, regulation, and litigation, supporting clients in matters where the factual, economic, and accounting issues are both highly technical and highly consequential. I have practiced in this area for more than 20 years and have worked on some of the largest, most complex, and highest-profile securities litigation and investigations matters in the country, including the Wells Fargo sales practices investigation, one of Apple’s most significant securities litigation matters, the recent Rivian Automotive securities litigation related to its IPO, and many more.

Q: What types of clients and matters does your practice focus on?

A: Our primary clients are Am Law 100 law firms and directors and officers facing regulatory inquiries, enforcement actions, or securities litigation. We are most often engaged in situations where the issues are technically demanding and time-sensitive, and where early strategic decisions can materially affect the trajectory of a case. From an industry perspective, we routinely work with large, global financial institutions and many of the most highly regarded Fortune 100 technology companies in the world.

The matters we typically work on include securities class actions, derivative litigation, complex financial disputes, including damages assessments, and forensic investigations involving disclosure issues, market activity, valuation, or transaction-related allegations. Increasingly, we are brought in early, often before a motion to dismiss is even filed. At this early stage, we help to shape defense strategy before positions harden and costs escalate.

Q: What differentiates your securities litigation practice from others in the market?

A: The core differentiator is our expert-led, technology-enabled team model. We operate with a lean, deeply experienced group of professionals who have worked together for more than 15 years. That continuity matters. It allows us to move quickly, communicate efficiently, and apply judgment that has been refined across decades of dealing with similar matters.

Our size also enables us to take a highly strategic and tactical approach. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all framework, we tailor our analysis to the specific allegations and strategic objectives of each case. We are technology-enabled, but expert-driven—the tools support the analysis, not the other way around.

Just as important, we are comfortable going very narrow and deep. In many cases, the most impactful issues hinge on a very specific nuance and our clients require niche expertise to support their needs. We have access to more than 1 million industry experts that we frequently partner with to supplement our accounting, economic, and financial experts. Our experience allows us to surface those nuanced issues early and help clients focus their resources where they matter most.

Q: How have client expectations in securities litigation evolved in recent years?

A: Securities litigation is quickly changing—both procedurally and due to technological shifts.

Settlements are increasingly growing, with median settlement value in 2025 at a 10-year high, particularly if a matter survives a motion to dismiss. As a result, clients increasingly expect advisors who can help them win—or significantly narrow—the case early. There is far less appetite for broad, unfocused analysis. Instead, clients want precision, credibility, and a clear articulation of why certain theories fail under scrutiny at the pleadings stage.

This has elevated the importance of targeted financial and market analysis and the ability to respond creatively and credibly when translating complex technical issues into persuasive, defensible positions under intense judicial scrutiny.

In addition, clients increasingly expect that experts know how to use AI effectively and responsibly. Deliverables that rely on generative or analytical AI must meet rigorous and defensible standards—with robust human oversight.

Q: What major enforcement and regulatory shifts are influencing securities litigation this year?

A: One of the most notable shifts is the increased role of state attorneys general in enforcement activity. As federal enforcement priorities have shifted and staffing reductions have affected agencies like the SEC and DOJ, state attorneys general appear poised to step in to fill perceived gaps. That dynamic introduces new risks for companies that may have historically focused their compliance and litigation strategies on federal regulators.

At the same time, the SEC itself has undergone significant changes, with more anticipated. These developments are creating uncertainty, but also opportunity, for public companies as they reassess disclosure practices, governance structures, and litigation risk.

Q: What about arbitration provisions as a way to limit litigation?

A: One of the more interesting and potentially transformative developments is the emerging opportunity for public companies to enforce arbitration provisions that could limit or eliminate securities class actions as we know them. The SEC has taken a more neutral stance on arbitration clauses in registration statements, opening the door for companies to revisit this issue.

What’s especially significant is that costs for companies and insurers could skyrocket, while opportunities for plaintiffs could diminish. Securities class actions in their current form, often lasting for several years, are still far more efficient than dozens or even hundreds of individual arbitration claims, each requiring separate defense.

It is an area that warrants close attention, as future challenges and regulatory responses will shape how viable this strategy ultimately becomes.

Q: We haven’t really talked about the focus that seems to be on everyone’s minds these days: artificial intelligence. How is AI influencing securities litigation?

A: AI-related securities claims have emerged as one of the most significant recent developments. Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on alleged misrepresentations about companies’ AI capabilities, deployment, or strategic importance. Many of these cases revolve around what has been described as “AI-washing,” where companies are alleged to have overstated the sophistication or impact of AI initiatives.

Plaintiffs are testing how courts will evaluate statements about AI that may be aspirational, forward-looking, or grounded in rapidly changing technical realities. As a result, we are seeing that AI-related filings generally have been dismissed at a lower rate than other filings but are settled at a higher rate.

Outside of trends in securities class actions, my personal view is that we need to be leaning into AI or we’ll be left behind. At Secretariat, we are actively pursuing and implementing opportunities to utilize AI in a smart and responsible way.

We like to equate AI to a first-year analyst. It’s smart and capable but needs to be checked for accuracy and reasoning. So yes, we are always looking for ways to deploy advanced technology to benefit our clients, but that technology is always supported by expert judgment and never replaces it; the stakes are simply too high in our business to do otherwise.

Q: AI is certainly an increasingly litigated area. What other topics are seeing increased litigation?

A: Crypto-related disputes and enforcement remain a growing area. In 2025, there were 14 cases with crypto-related claims, 75% more than in 2024. In addition, healthcare-related filings always account for a significant portion of securities litigation filings, and this continued in 2025, with healthcare-related filings accounting for more new filings than any other sector. Each of these trends is likely to continue in 2026.

Conclusion on the Securities Litigation Landscape

Although the SEC has shifted from its regulation by enforcement era, it is evident that private litigation and state attorneys general will fill at least some of the enforcement void. In addition, the potential for public companies to enforce arbitration provisions could have a transformative effect on securities litigation as we know it; however, at this time, it is not clear that a significant number of companies have or will adopt such provisions. Undoubtedly, this year will be a year of change in the securities litigation space.

More Articles: