Climate advocacy groups and investors have stepped up their use of litigation to try and speed up the move to net zero and, while energy and resource companies and government bodies are the main targets, banks and other financial institutions are in the firing line as well. According to the most recent United Nations Environment Program Global Climate Litigation Report, case numbers worldwide rose from 884 in 2017 to 1550 in 2020 and 2180 in 2022. Global law firm NautaDutilh has issued an ESG litigation update that details recent legal claims against European banks ING Group, BNP Paribas and Credit Agricole. In Australia, ANZ is facing a claim that it has failed to properly manage the material risks of climate change and biodiversity loss.In January, Friends of the Earth Netherlands threatened to start a climate case against ING Group unless it aligns its climate policy with the 1.5 degree target of the Paris Agreement, reduces its CO2 emissions by 48 per cent and phases out its financing of the fossil fuel sector. In response, ING issued a statement saying: “We aim to play our part in the low carbon transformation that’s necessary to achieve a sustainable future. Even though we finance a lot of sustainable activities, we reflect the global economy and still finance more that’s not sustainable. “We announced in December 2023 that we will phase out the financing of upstream oil and gas activities by 2040 and aim to triple new financing of renewable power generation annually.” In November last year, a group of four French climate activist groups filed a criminal complaint, alleging that French banks BNP Paribas and Credit Agricole, and insurance companies Axa and BPCE, violated anti-money laundering laws by funding Brazilian beef companies, which contributed to illegal deforestation. This is the first climate-related case based on a claim that financial institutions profited from money laundering.  In Australia, an ANZ shareholder filed a claim in the Federal Court in November alleging that the bank has failed to properly manage the material risks of climate change and biodiversity loss, and sought an order that the bank provide more information about its risk management framework. Equity Generation Lawyers, acting for shareholder Catherine Rossiter, said her concerns stem from disclosures in the bank’s 2022 annual report that acknowledged climate change and biodiversity loss were “emerging risks” but did not make clear whether those risks were adequately dealt with in its risk management framework. “Australian financial services law requires that financial institutions properly manage material risks, which include emerging material risks,” the statement said. According to Equity Generation Lawyers, ANZ’s lending to fossil fuel projects increased in the 2021/22 financial year. It described the bank as a “climate and biodiversity laggard”. One of the more unusual local cases was O’Donnell v Commonwealth of Australia, in which the applicant, on behalf of a class of investors in Australian government bonds, alleged that the Commonwealth engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to financial services (the sale of the bonds) by failing to disclose the risks associated with climate change on the