Investment In Litigation Funding ?

free2bfree

Malthusian wrote: »

You haven't called Leeward Insurance, then? Long-distance calls to Bermuda don't cost that much these days. Why not give them a call and ask them for independently audited accounts showing that they have sufficient financial strength to compensate all Allansons investors, should it be required?

During your phone call, did Allansons explain why these potential litigants need to sue their mortgage company in the courts when they have the option of claiming redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service?

Did the FCA confirm that the FSCS will cover a credit default swap arrangement where an insurance broker promises to compensate investors should an insurer fail to pay out, even if no negligence has arisen? (You don't have to bother answering that one.)

How much would you pay? Since you're so chummy with Allansons, perhaps you can persuade them to hold an open debate via Skype.

I am not chummy with Allansons. I only discovered this opportunity yesterday and I was shocked that you and a few others were trying to put my friend off. My friend is making 1 % in banks. he is losing money year on year. He works hard for his money and he wanted a safe and secure investment and I was appalled at these comments without any substance. My friend has now been in contact and is going ahead with the investment as he was with me during all my calls and due diligence. Why do you not take the time to call Allansons or box legal or the FCA.

I do not need to call Leeward. My friends contract is with Allansons. Allansons contract is with Box legal. They are all regulated and are not allowed to mislead. I am happy that both box legal and Allansons have insurance and box legal having already serviced 250 law firms with no red marks against their name. I am totally satisfied that Allansons would pay the £4,000 back to my friend if a case lost. If my friend invested in ten cases it is highly unlikely all ten cases will fail. I have no doubt that the one that do fail Allasons would repay the £4,00 as agreed otherwise there would have been a fraud committed. The FCA and the solicitors regulation authority would not authorise these companies unless they were satisfied with their credibility. Leeward is irrelevant to anyone. The contract is with Allansons who have insurance.

I have already answered why the claimants will need a lawyer as they can claim for consequential loss and distress and therefore the figures may vary. Not all claimants are as clever as you to do things by themselves in a court of law. I know people who use solicitors to fill out speeding tickets still.

My call with the FCA did confirm that if box legal went into liquidation then I would be protected by the FSCS. They also confirmed that there are no red flags on leeward and they also confirmed that box legal were a credible company with no flags.

In fact I myself will personally be making an investment of 10 cases that is £40,000 and I will duly report on this forum the dealings I have with allansons and the returns that I make. I will prove on this forum step by step that My 40,000 investment will give me a significant return in 12 months time.

You should call Allansons and Box Legal and FCA and report your findings. I cant stand people preventing people from making money

free2bfree

Malthusian wrote: »

In fact, let's put your money where your mouth is. Name the time and the Skype account and I'll happily argue the merits of this investment in public with a representative of Allansons, Box Legal, Leeward Insurance, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. I'll put £100 on the table if you're game.

We can get three experienced MSE members who haven't yet taken part in this thread to act as independent adjudicators and vote at the end on whether they consider this an attractive investment. (Jamesd would surely be up for it; anyone who invests in pawned jewellery can't be accused of being anti innovative investments.) Whoever carries the debate wins £100.

Up for it? I mean obviously the £100 is trivial to someone clever enough to make hundreds of thousands of pounds from risk-free investments, but either way you get to watch me destroyed by the finest legal minds and insurance experts that Bolton and Bermuda have to offer.

Way too much time on your hands! just do this the proper way research the industry and the market the opportunity and speak to experts at woodford litigation or call box legal and report your findings. Why dont you try to tell box legal what you are saying on this forum. Get hit with a law suit for defamation and then we can read the court transcripts. and you can post the results

free2bfree

cloud_dog wrote: »

Well, in that case you have simply confirmed what some of us thought. The FCA covers and provides authorisation on specific financial activity, or a range of, but not carte blanch. And, in amongst your extensive (sic) research and investigations it is this aspect where you fall down, and without it the whole pretence falls down.

Soooo, you are either Donald Trump or a numpty? Come on which one?

So you are saying the the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority and these companies relevant insurance providers all think that box legal and allansons are not credible and like to mislead the public and you are further saying that 250 law firms that have used box legal are numpties....

somehow I believe the regulatory bodies over you or that malnutrition guy -

John-K_3

TheNobel1 wrote: »

After reading the information i have come to the conclusion that most the replies on this forum is of uneducated people in relation to the actual opportunity.

Hey, I’m not uneducated, I have a PhD!

That’s not important right now, though. What is more important in terms of my ability to make a determination on an investment is my decades in the city.

Like others, I say it sounds like a ludicrous proposition, it makes no sense, and no-one who has popped up, like you, with a fresh login to argue otherwise has done a decent job of it.

How much have you invested, or how much will you invest?

John-K_3

TheNobel1 wrote: »

Must of missed the answer to the FCA/FSCS feel free to copy and paste so i can read. Sorry cloud dog i was unaware punctuation and learning how to quote was necessary for this particular forum. Like you i have a lot of time on my hands and just inserting my opinion but due to your attack on my grammar for no apparent reason i would imagine you are a very lonely man indeed. Maybe you wasn't loved as a child please do not waffle on about my spelling and punctuation, if you have something to say please let it be about the conversation rather then your sorry attempt to bully me out of this forum with slanderous statements

The grammar, punctuation and spelling are not irrelevant, so mentioning them is not without reason. Your written English is execrable, strongly suggesting that you have a low level of education, and probably are unlikely to have the backbround to adequately understand what you are writing about

I know that it seems like nit-picking to point out the difference between lose and loose, or to note that you do not know how to punctuate, but these are tells, they are important signs that you do not have a legal or financial background.

It is possible that they are misleading here, so I’ll just ask, do you have enough financial and legal knowledge to advise here?

redux

This thread is becoming more absurd than that new sitcom ...

fwor

free2bfree wrote: »

<<< a lot of words - seriously - a great deal of text >>>

Wow, free2bfree, you only heard about this "opportunity" yesterday, but you've joined this forum today and written 1559 words (or put another way, well over 8 thousand characters, including spaces) in defence of it!

Those of a sceptical disposition are likely to think that you may have a vested interest in promoting and defending the product...

Flobberchops

I have two meta-questions.

First, the ardent apologists for this scam, sorry scheme (John and the other account) - can you confirm you are yourselves investors in this company? Can you show us some proof of your returns, with personal information of course redacted? Also, while we're playing, would you like to go on record denying any personal interests in the company?

Second: free2bfree, by your own description you're rich. Why waste your valuable time "educating" skeptics, surely you ought to know the futility and poor return on man-hours? Just speaking for myself here, but if I found a guaranteed get rich quick scheme I would pour money into it, reinvest my gains in it, and keep it an absolute secret while laughing my backside off. I wouldn't waste my time making increasingly desperate posts on internet forums justifying myself. In a nutshell, why do you care what we think?

HappyHarry

Entertaining as this thread is, has anyone looked at the latest accounts of Box Legal?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04871657/filing-history

Latest accounts show a loss of £856k on a turnover of £636k, and page 6 states that due to not meeting FCA requirements, there is the potential that the company may not be considered an ongoing concern.

I’m surprised that FCA have given this the green light. Or maybe we haven’t been told the whole truth in the above posts?

bostonerimus

free2bfree wrote: »

I and many others who I know have made hundreds of thousand from this unique and niche area of investment and it saddens me that people would put others off from making money with baseless posts.

The social consciousness of these people who have made thousands from this scheme continues to amaze me. They really are good people to want to share this with everyone.............

This all smells like a sales pitch to me rather than a thread with legitimate questions, so let's just ignore this thread from now on and let it wither.