Investment In Litigation Funding ?

Malthusian wrote: »

What makes you think I haven't seen the information in hand?

Which specific aspect of the information do you think I have missed?

It was only a assumption as their was no reasoning behind the statement of get out and run

i remember reading an article that had a interview with Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of facebook incase you are not aware) he was saying he invited 5 people to his room in harvard to discuss a business opportunity but only 2 people came, those 2 people are now billionaires, so my question to you is why would you discard the opportunity telling people to run away

Weapons-grade FOMO b*******.

Millions of people have been invited into rooms over the years and been told about amazing money-making schemes which will let them get rich quick without risk, and then lost all their money.

The two people this particular myth refers to were not "invited to Zuckerberg's room", they were already his roommates. They were not investors being asked to hand Zuckerberg money as a passive investment, they were colleagues who helped him develop the site. They were principally investing time and expertise, not money, and being founders of Facebook, they had full control of their investment. This myth that they became billionaires just by taking a punt on an investment scheme (and you can too) is extensively peddled by people in dodgy pyramid schemes.

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. They mention "This means it is of no interest to the solicitors whether people have a case or not" well obviously these cases have to come from somewhere and are also independently assessed by a separate barrister (as with most litigation cases) then they mention "Only it isn't because apparently all the risk has been transferred from the investor to someone in a tin shack in Bermuda" a lot of insurance companies are based in regions that have tax advantages even some in the Lloyds of London market so that statement alone is ridiculas.

Is the shack actually made of corrugated iron? I apologise unreservedly if so.

They then go on to mention " in "no win no fee" cases the risk of losing is transferred from the client to the solicitor. In this case, external investment is being solicited so the risk is transferred from the solicitor to the external investor" they are indicating the risk is on the funder i would imagine he means because of the Law of champerty which basically means if a stranger funds the cases and looses then they will become liable for the cost!

No, I mean that if a stranger pays money to fund a litigation case and the case fails, the investor's money is gone as Allansons has spent it, and the investor isn't going to get it back.

Unless, of course, the guy who actually lives in a corrugated iron shack in Bermuda returns their money. This depends on whether the guy in Bermuda has sufficient funds to compensate all investors, even assuming the insurance contract which requires him to compensate the investors does actually apply.

"Only it isn't because apparently all the risk has been transferred from the investor to someone in a tin shack in Bermuda" i actually thought similar when first reading but a lot of companies are baseed away from the Uk for tax reasons plus if you take the time to read the info and look at the ATE signed paperwork you will notice box legal are the FCA regulated broker and are intrusted with doing the correct checks and advising allansons correctly because of this if the insurance does not pay out then under the regulations of FCA advice a funder is actually covered under the FSCS up to 90% of funded value.

There is a full analysis of this claim here and I'm not going to repeat the whole thing.

Suffice it to say that

a) Box Legal should only be required to compensate investors if they have been negligent. If the guy in Bermuda fails to pay out, this does not automatically mean Box Legal have been negligent and are liable. If Box Legal's advice to take out insurance with Leeward Insurance was correct at the time, they are not liable.
b) In the absence of a liability created by negligence, promising to compensate investors should an insurer fail is essentially a credit default swap.
c) The FSCS does not pay out on credit default swaps. In general, the FSCS does not cover any investment promising a 50% return in 6-18 months.

*edit*

Plus Allanson's own investment literature states that the investment is not covered by the FSCS, which means that someone is lying to you.

This reminds me of bitcoins and cryptocurrency debates the only people who slate it are the people who haven't made any money from it or the people who cant be bothered to do the research to understand it.

This reminds me of cryptocurrency as well, for a very different reason.

People did a lot of research into USI Tech, OneCoin and the like, and then lost all their money.

redux wrote: »

There are also millions of other places in the internet and the rest of the world where you can suffer that.

This is very true and like most people on these types of websites i have lots of time on my hands so happy to comment on those opinionated threads also.

Malthusian wrote: »

Is the shack actually made of corrugated iron? I apologise unreservedly if so.

No, I mean that if a stranger pays money to fund a litigation case and the case fails, the investor's money is gone as Allansons has spent it, and the investor isn't going to get it back.

Unless, of course, the guy who actually lives in a corrugated iron shack in Bermuda returns their money. This depends on whether the guy in Bermuda has sufficient funds to compensate all investors, even assuming the insurance contract which requires him to compensate the investors does actually apply.

There is a full analysis of this claim
Suffice it to say that

a) Box Legal should only be required to compensate investors if they have been negligent. If the guy in Bermuda fails to pay out, this does not automatically mean Box Legal have been negligent and are liable. If Box Legal's advice to take out insurance with Leeward Insurance was correct at the time, they are not liable.
b) In the absence of a liability created by negligence, promising to compensate investors should an insurer fail is essentially a credit default swap.
c) The FSCS does not pay out on credit default swaps. In general, the FSCS does not cover any investment promising a 50% return in 6-18 months.

*edit*

Plus Allanson's own investment literature states that the investment is not covered by the FSCS, which means that someone is lying to you.

This reminds me of cryptocurrency as well, for a very different reason.

People did a lot of research into USI Tech, OneCoin and the like, and then lost all their money.

No, I mean that if a stranger pays money to fund a litigation case and the case fails, the investor's money is gone as Allansons has spent it, and the investor isn't going to get it back.

"Unless, of course, the guy who actually lives in a corrugated iron shack in Bermuda returns their money. This depends on whether the guy in Bermuda has sufficient funds to compensate all investors, even assuming the insurance contract which requires him to compensate the investors does actually apply" The way i read the information is the ATE insurance comes into play if the case is lost if they fail to pay then the FSCS also comes into play.

"There is a full analysis of this claim ]and I'm not going to repeat the whole thing" Good article but once again this is someones opinion and not actual fact as it states in their disclaimer at the bottom of the page they openly admit to not being lawyers so cant gauge on the definitions of the contract other then what they can find online. They also misconstrue some information mentioning how a IFA doesn't not use words in their contracts such as "irrevocably accept" Unfortunately, it is not possible to dump liability on the FSCS by inserting clauses in contracts with words like “irrevocably accept”. Whether the FSCS is liable for a loss is governed by the definition of a “protected claim” found in the FCA’s COMP handbook.
If this approach worked, any financial adviser could write to their client saying that they “irrevocably accept that I will be liable if your investment goes down” and by doing so shift the investment risk from the client to the FSCS, while giving the client all the return if the investments go up. This is leading a reader the wrong way in my opinion because you can not give any compensation if the market goes down like any stock isa investment however if you are miss sold the isa, terms conditions or anything like this then under the FCA rules you would be entitled to compensation as you have been MISS SOLD which is what this litigation is all about or am i wrong?

they also go on to say There are two problems with assuming the same will happen here. Firstly, advice to invest in unregulated investments is covered up to £50,000 only, so the FSCS’ liability is limited. Here, Box Legal are claiming that as insurance advice, investors are covered up to 90% of the claim, so the FSCS’ liability is virtually unlimited. I think if you look into the financial promotions act (and i could be wrong here) funding a litigation case is not classed as a investment! meaning the up to £50,000 is once again irrelevant and also misconstruing the information and miss guiding potential funders although once again its my opinion and i could be completely wrong.

The way i understand it is the ATE insurance cover the claim if the case is lost and due to the advice of the FCA re3gulated insurance broker being Box legal if they are unable to repay funders then they are covered under the FSCS as they have miss sold the policy to Allansons due to insufficient research on financials

you say "Plus Allanson's own investment literature states that the investment is not covered by the FSCS, which means that someone is lying to you." Nope it just means your are misinterpreting the text let me assist you. Allansons mortgage litigation itself is not covered under the FSCS much like anything outside of a bank however the insurance broker is regulated meaning if they mis sell or miss advise then you (or Allansons) are covered by the FSCS

This reminds me of cryptocurrency as well, for a very different reason.

"People did a lot of research into USI Tech, OneCoin and the like, and then lost all their money" Nope that is not why it reminds me about cryptocurencies at all actually because unless you have invested into a very poor coin or token even though the market is down at present most investors in this are still very much in profit but the reason it reminds me of crypto is because everyone who is against crypto either has not made any money from it(because they are not involved) or they are to lazy to do research meaning they don't know anything about it and like most people if we don't understand something we don't like it but i like the way you mention Onecoin to plant the message into readers of this forum that investors lost all their money.... it is very clever indeed hats off to you sir