Investment In Litigation Funding ?
Comments
-
The insurer is Box Legal in the UK, google them, 400,000 policies out there have paid out £20 million they only do ATE(after the event) insurance and only work with solicitors.
My guess is the solicitors cant afford to fund the claims themselves as they are £4,000 per claim and are getting hundreds of requests for the service each month, multiply 4000 x 100= 400,000, I doubt they have that cash available every month. They are now handling over 1,300 claims against lenders, with that number rising by 80–100 a week at present.0 -
The insurer is Box Legal in the UK
No it isn't. Box Legal is not authorised to effect or carry out contracts of insurance in the UK. According to the literature for this investment, the insurer is Leeward Insurance based in Bermuda. Box Legal are the broker.
How many of these 400,000 policies were with Leeward Insurance? Of those, how many have paid out after Allansons took a mortgage lender to court over a client who had been wrongly overcharged due to automatic capitalisation, and lost?google them, 400,000 policies out there have paid out £20 million they only do ATE(after the event) insurance and only work with solicitors.
How many cases have been won?They are now handling over 1,300 claims against lenders, with that number rising by 80!!!8211;100 a week at present.
Why have these people who have been wrongfully affected by automatic mortgage capitalisation not claimed from their lenders via the Financial Ombudsman Service - a process which by design does not need professional legal assistance, and which, under Civil Procedure Rules, a judge may well have expected consumers to attempt (as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution) before going to court?
What is your source for this information?0 -
The insurer is Box Legal in the UK, google them, 400,000 policies out there have paid out £20 million they only do ATE(after the event) insurance and only work with solicitors.
My guess is the solicitors cant afford to fund the claims themselves as they are £4,000 per claim and are getting hundreds of requests for the service each month, multiply 4000 x 100= 400,000, I doubt they have that cash available every month. They are now handling over 1,300 claims against lenders, with that number rising by 80–100 a week at present.
Of course they could. They only need to finance one such case, make their money back + is it ?50%? and recycle that into new cases. In a year they could retire.
Anyone genuinely making 50% with "no risk" would keep it to themselves.
Unless they were crazy. In which case you wouldn't want to be investing in them.0 -
Hey, the Spam button is back
0 -
fund 1 case, then re invest the profits !! maybe sit on that case for 6 to 18 months with no return and possibly only the original investment back, they don't male the money on the 50% gain they make the money on the success of a £25,000 case winning in a no win no fee arrangement and getting a cut of that. that's how I understand the mechanics of it, the 50% profit works for an investor, and its only 50% on a £25k claim, a £12,500 claim would yield a 25% profit on a £4,000 investment0
-
fund 1 case, then re invest the profits !! maybe sit on that case for 6 to 18 months with no return and possibly only the original investment back
What do you mean "possibly"? What about the Bermudan insurer that is providing After The Event insurance?
Forget "one case". Surely they only have to fund say ten such cases for enough to succeed to provide enough capital to fund another twenty or fifty. This is a firm of successful solicitors, surely they have enough spare legal staff and funding to take on such lucrative cases.
Lawyers don't solicit investment from randoms via unregulated introducers every time they have a potentially lucrative case. They fund the cost of going to court from retained profits from previous successful cases. Why is this different?
The 50% gain from winning an individual legal case is perfectly plausible. (We'll leave aside the lack of explanation as to why these plaintiffs haven't sought redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service instead of the courts.) The fact this return is supposedly risk-free, thanks to the After The Event insurance provided by a Bermudan insurer, is the problematic part.0 -
The insurer is Box Legal in the UK, google them, 400,000 policies out there have paid out £20 million they only do ATE(after the event) insurance and only work with solicitors.
My guess is the solicitors cant afford to fund the claims themselves as they are £4,000 per claim and are getting hundreds of requests for the service each month, multiply 4000 x 100= 400,000, I doubt they have that cash available every month. They are now handling over 1,300 claims against lenders, with that number rising by 80–100 a week at present.
I'm almost reluctant to quote this post, in case it is deleted, but let's try another bit of arithmetic.
400,000 policies out there have paid out £20 million
Some choices emerge:
Your Google search came up with some wrong numbers, or you've mistranscribed them.
An average claim of £4000 is settled at an average of £50 (which is 20M/400k)
Somehow I don't believe either of these possibilities, but as I and probably anyone else here are not interested enough to look things up, perhaps we'll never know.0 -
The business plan sounds very strange to me. It suggests that there are lots of cases out there involving lenders miscalculating mortgage repayments by an average of £25,000.
I could be wrong, sounds very unlikely to me that lenders would miscalculate mortgage repayments.0 -
fund 1 case, then re invest the profits !! maybe sit on that case for 6 to 18 months with no return and possibly only the original investment back, they don't male the money on the 50% gain they make the money on the success of a £25,000 case winning in a no win no fee arrangement and getting a cut of that. that's how I understand the mechanics of it, the 50% profit works for an investor, and its only 50% on a £25k claim, a £12,500 claim would yield a 25% profit on a £4,000 investment
Oh but I understood it was a fantastic opportunity with guaranteed no risk profits and now you are telling me my money might be locked up for 18 months and I'll make no return at all?
Try and be consistent please.
If it works for a private individual one case at a time it works for many cases at the same time in parallel especially if one single case may result in no profit at all. If one case isn't enough then that rules it out for anyone other than companies that can put large sums in.0 -
steampowered wrote: »The business plan sounds very strange to me. It suggests that there are lots of cases out there involving lenders miscalculating mortgage repayments by an average of £25,000.
I could be wrong, sounds very unlikely to me that lenders would miscalculate mortgage repayments.
It's not miscalculation as such, it's increasing someone's monthly mortgage repayments after they fall into arrears. Which is justifiable in one sense as their debt is bigger than it should be, but not in another as it means that someone who was already struggling to make payments has an even worse problem.
That this is a real problem is an objective fact, because the FCA has ordered mortgage lenders to pro-actively find out if they have done this and if so, compensate borrowers.
What John200 has failed to explain is why customers who haven't been compensated (in defiance of the FCA's edict) need to sue their lenders in court (funded by random punters found by unregulated introducers) instead of complaining via the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Then there is the ongoing lack of clarity over the "After The Event" insurance.
The Financial Ombudsman is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. People are expected to attempt Alternative Dispute Resolution before they go to court. Someone who sues their mortgage lender instead of going to the Ombudsman therefore runs a risk that the judge will throw the case out and tell them to go to the Ombudsman. Meaning no money for the lawyers, and the investor will be relying on Leeward Insurance of Bermuda to compensate them. Alternatively, if they've already gone to the Ombudsman and lost, that doesn't suggest a very strong case, which creates a risk that see above.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards