Anyone else taking action against Woodford Equity Income Fund?

zagfles

bowlhead99 said:

zagfles said:

k12479 said:

zagfles said:
Surely if the case were to succeed, then anyone who hadn't signed up would simply be able to go to the FOS for free, with a slam dunk win since the legal argument has already been won by others in exactly the same boat.

That assumes it gets to court and is ruled on. As I understand it from a different case, if a settlement is reached between the parties, then those who aren't part of the action would not be able to benefit from it, payout or argument-wise.

Which case were you thinking of? If they do "roll over" out of court, why would they not for anyone else who put in a claim? "Pay me what you paid them or I'll take legal action like they did". I suppose they could try to keep the settlement amount secret, but I doubt that would work with hundreds or thousands of people in the claim.

People settle pending court cases without prejudice / without admission of guilt, all the time. For example: a law firm has a case to claim £2m on behalf of a thousand 'victims' in a class action, where they want £2000 each. But the case might go either way, resulting in £0 or £2m. The law firm says  to the defending company, how about you give me £1m and we forget it.  The company says no, I'm not guilty, but I suppose I don't want the hassle of being dragged through the courts on behalf of your 1000 aggrieved customers and if I get a bad judge I might need to give you £2m..., how about I just give you £999,900 without any admission of guilt, and you drop the case? The lawyers say sure, that's almost a grand each for our clients, best we could do and better than nothing, we'll just take our 30% fee and give our clients £699.93 each after fees, and then we don't need to waste a few days in court, which will save us hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of effort.

Then an individual who wasn't part of the class action calls the company. "Hey, I heard you rolled over and paid out for that case where you were clearly in the wrong? Please send me £2000". The company says no, we're not guilty and are not going to pay you £2000. So, eff off. We're not even going to pay you £1000, because it would send the wrong signals to other chancers. But feel free to spend £20,000- £200,000 appointing lawyers to have a go at claiming your £2000. 

Disappointed with that response, the individual emails them back: "OK, I don't want to waste my money on lawyers, but clearly I would win in court as I have the moral high ground as you caved before.  How about you just send me £699.93 in a brown envelope. I understand some other people got that. It should be a slam dunk". The company says no, we're not guilty of anything. Why would we give you money? We'll settle for £0.00, how's that? Now please eff off.

Disappointed with that response and realising it's not worth spending thousands on lawyers, the investor has a brainwave. Of course! The Ombudsman would be on my side! Especially now the company has been defeated by lawyers and paid out. He asks the Ombudsman. The ombudsman says there is absolutely no precedent as the case didn't go to court last time, no judgement has been made. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Complaint isn't upheld.

Cool story, though sounds implausible. Do you have a real example? If they caved in for one group of people, and that became public knowledge (as I'm sure it would) why wouldn't they for others, who will have exactly the same option(s)? Even if they weren't frightened of a public ombudsman judgement, other NWNF lawyers be champing at the bit to sign up others who weren't part of the original action, knowing that their task will be easier now that the company has caved for others in the same position.

Aged

I'm considering whether I should join one of the actions. Have had a look at one so far but not sure if it's worth it to be honest. If successful, the firm will take a substantial chunk of your compensation to cover their fees, which is fair enough I suppose. However, it seems to be saying that the total compensation would be equally allocated between all claimants, regardless of how much each claimant has lost. So if your losses were substantial, you'll get the same amount as those at the other end of the scale. Anyone know if my understanding of this is correct?

bob_a_builder

I was wondering about joining the case too
I had some exposure to Woodford 'Equity Income' shares as part of an Old Mutual Wealth Collective Retirement account
I have received a couple of re-payments from LFS via Old Mutual into my current pension fund
But am still about 3k short 

Looking at the Leigh Day page its states
"This form should be completed by the person(s) who bought and holds the shares in the Woodford Equity Income Fund ("WEIF"). This means that if you hold some shares by yourself and some jointly with another person, you will need to complete the form twice (once for the shares you hold by yourself and once for those held jointly together with your co-claimant). You will need to complete the form an additional time if you also act as a representative for someone else."

Since I didn't directly purchase/hold the shares  it looks like I'm excluded from joining the case - is that correct ?

wonderman

I have been considering joining one of the claims against Link. I am holding off as there are multiple law firms (with different terms and conditions) bringing cases and it seems to me that they will all either win or they will all lose. I don't think that Link Fund Solutions has the funds to repay the investors' losses; therefore Link will be forced to defend itself. If the lawyers win then investors would have to claim under the FCSC scheme (on the basis that Link does not have the money). Once that outcome has been reached then I guess other NWNF solicitors or individuals will be able to launch their own claims. If this is the case then there is no rush to sign up exclusively to one or other of the legal firms. Is this a reasonable view or am I missing something?

dunstonh

If the lawyers win then investors would have to claim under the FCSC scheme (on the basis that Link does not have the money).

The FSCS may not apply in that scenario as litigation awards means the investors become creditors.

eastmidsaver

hi there,   
so just been researching this Woodford issue,  and came across this thread.   apologies if much of this information is repeated or answered somewhere in this thread.
i was invested in Woodford,  and lost around £3k in total.  after looking at the options, i am considering signing up to the Leigh Day claim.  it appears that they are experienced in these type of cases,  they have backing from a credible society (sharesoc), and capped at 30% commission (including VAT and insurance costs).   i understand it is no win - no fee, meaning there is not really any risk to joining this.
can anyone else advise if they have signed up to them,  and if my understanding above is correct.
this is the weblink :  https://www.leighday.co.uk/latest-updates/cases-and-testimonials/cases/woodfordlink-group-claim/
many thanks.

alig1

A group of investors involved in this scandal have recently set up a Facebook group The Woodford Campaign Group