‘I feel guilty’: Martin was repaid $422k after a ‘devastating’ super collapse. Thousands of others aren’t so lucky

Exclusive: Among the 12,000 Australians entangled in the $1.1 billion First Guardian and Master Shield collapse, a handful of lucky investors have walked away unscathed.

For 59-year-old Martin Dunen, this stroke of luck has him wracked with “guilt”.

The Bacchus Marsh grandfather has recovered every cent of his $422,000 retirement fund after Shield Master Fund entered liquidation in late 2024.

Thousands of super funds were wiped out in the twin collapse. Most of them are still waiting for answers.

“I actually feel bad about it. I’m happy that I got it back, but I still feel guilty,” Dunen told nine.com.au.

“It’s a strange situation.”

With his 60s fast approaching, Dunen had been mapping out his retirement.

He switched super funds in June 2022 after using an online super comparison tool.

Read more

Micki thought he'd lost $150k. Then an email arrived in his inbox

His money was rolled into Macquarie Investment Management Ltd (MIML), a subsidiary of Macquarie Bank, under the advice of financial firm InterPrac.

“I’d been working my guts out for years, putting extra in my super every year,” Dunen explained.

“I was thinking that retirement's coming up, so I'll jam as much in there as I can.”

As a superannuation trustee, MIML oversaw an estimated $321 million in super investments into Shield from about 3000 investors. 

Most of Dunen’s money had been invested into Shield.

When Shield collapsed into liquidation, his funds were frozen.

“It was hard to realise that I’d [initially] lost that money because it’s not in a bank account of where you've got access to it,” he said.

“Then I started sort of looking deeper into it, and then realised, hang on, this mob's in trouble.

“I was really disappointed. I was devastated.”

Dunen’s super fund hung in the balance as the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) pursued MIML in the Federal Court over “significant losses” incurred by its link to Shield.

MIML admitted it did not act “efficiently, honestly and fairly” by failing to place Shield on a watch list for heightened monitoring. 

And in September 2025, Macquarie committed to repaying 100 per cent of the net capital invested in Shield through its platform to investors.

“The payment will eliminate the necessity for investors to wait for a likely complex multi-year process as Shield liquidators Alvarez & Marsal continue to pursue recovery of funds,” Macquarie said at the time.

Read more

‘Moving entire families’: Tech founders say mass exodus to the US is brewing

Every cent of Dunen’s initial $304,603.79 investment in MIML was repaid.

“It was a huge relief. I am glad that I was lucky enough,” he said.

The next mountain to climb was recovering the money Dunen lost in unrealised investment growth. 

For this, Dunen lodged a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

Thousands of victims turning to AFCA have struggled to pinpoint the exact entity responsible for their losses.

After some back-and-forth, Dunen’s complaint was directed to InterPrac Financial Planning.

ASIC is taking legal action against InterPrac and alleges the firm exposed thousands of Australians to poor financial advice and significant risks due to “critical oversight and compliance failures”.

Read more

‘An additional mortgage’: Sue faces $374,000 special levy over sinking Melbourne apartment

A determination from AFCA found that Dunen’s investment in the Macquarie Super Fund and Shield was a “direct result of the financial firm’s inappropriate advice”. 

InterPrac was ordered to compensate Dunen $118,931.15 plus interest for the direct loss he incurred as a result of investing in Shield.

Dunen is “still wary” of superannuation schemes. 

But he has renewed faith in the systems designed to protect victims of the devastating fund collapses.

“Just have patience… have faith in the system because it worked for me,” he said.

Dunen, along with the nearly 3000 MIML-linked Shield investors, represent just one quarter of the 12,000 people who lost all or part of their retirement fund.

Many are still waiting on an AFCA determination. 

The government-backed Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) can only pay a maximum of $150,000 if a fund or advisor has entered liquidation.

Class action lawsuit launched

Melbourne law firm Gordon Legal has launched a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Victoria on behalf of the nearly 3000 MIML investors.

The proceedings allege that MIML’s repayment did not fully compensate investors for the "lost opportunity for their retirement savings to grow” or any distress suffered.

Lead plaintiff Rachelle Dessent said she was “absolutely gutted” to see how her super fared after Shield’s collapse.

"The blood just drained from my face when I first saw how my super had dropped,” Dessent said.

“I trusted the Macquarie brand, and I wouldn't have invested in Shield if it wasn't them."

The class action lawsuit is operating on an “opt-out” basis.

Some investors, like Dunen, aren’t on board with a class action lawsuit.

Investor advocate and Save our Super (SOS) founder Melinda Kee told nine.com.au she isn’t convinced this is the right path for some investors.

“A class action settlement isn't guaranteed to return 100 per cent of someone's loss. A negotiated settlement comes first,” she said.

“Gordon Legal's own material says its litigation funder is entitled to between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of any settlement fund if the action succeeds, with legal costs also dealt with from the amount awarded, subject to court approval. 

“These people have already lost enough.”

Kee pointed out that AFCA is “free” and that Dunen’s story is proof that this route of dispute resolution can work.

She is aware of several other investors who have been repaid both their initial investment and the unrealised returns.

“Every investor needs to look at their own circumstances. But Martin’s case shows why people need to ask questions before signing anything,” Kee added.

Gordon Legal partner Andrew Grech told nine.com.au that MIML investors are unable to pursue an AFCA claim against Macquarie.

“No one really knows yet how many people will be able to bring claims against their financial adviser because it is not known what the depth of insolvency is,” Grech said.

“[A class action] may not be the best course for some people, but I suspect for the majority, the vast majority, it will be.

“The delays at AFCA are enormous because AFCA is not really designed to handle mass claims. It’s not designed to handle the claims of literally thousands of individuals.”

Grech said that investors are not being “denied an opportunity they would otherwise have” and urged people to think “seriously” about their options.

“Because they might find that by the time their case comes along to AFCA, there’s no money there,” he added.

In a statement shared to nine.com.au, an ACFA spokesperson said that a class action “does not automatically prevent someone from making a complaint to AFCA”.

“Whether there is any impact on an AFCA complaint depends on the circumstances of the individual complaint, including the issues raised and the parties involved,” the spokesperson said.

Macquarie Group declined to comment on the ongoing class action lawsuit proceedings.

The information provided on this website is general in nature only and does not constitute personal financial advice. The information has been prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on any information on this website you should consider the appropriateness of the information having regard to your objectives, financial situation and needs.