Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • 5MeoDmt
    • By 5MeoDmt 23rd Oct 17, 12:52 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 3Thanks
    5MeoDmt
    Investment In Litigation Funding ?
    • #1
    • 23rd Oct 17, 12:52 PM
    Investment In Litigation Funding ? 23rd Oct 17 at 12:52 PM
    Hi,

    Just wondering if anyone here has had any experience with this or can give me any more information

    Had an email about an investment which is basically funding no win-no fee court cases where borrowers have overpaid mortgage payments due to miscalculations by the mortgage lenders

    The returns look really good (6000 return for a 4000 investment within 18 months) but I'm concerned there will be some hidden risks

    Any advice welcomed!
Page 4
    • dealer wins
    • By dealer wins 16th Feb 18, 11:55 AM
    • 5,773 Posts
    • 11,003 Thanks
    dealer wins
    If one day you are bored of having a lump sum of money, "invest" it in this scheme and wave it goodbye lol
    Choose life
    • John200
    • By John200 16th Feb 18, 11:56 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    John200
    dont know
    I didn't answer that question because I don't know the answer, all I know is there are offers to invest in the litigation so I guess the solicitors have a reason to believe there are cases out there
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 16th Feb 18, 12:34 PM
    • 3,687 Posts
    • 2,186 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    I didn't answer that question because I don't know the answer, all I know is there are offers to invest in the litigation so I guess the solicitors have a reason to believe there are cases out there
    Originally posted by John200
    But this is fundamental to how you espouse that this is a slam dunk opportunity.

    So, if you accept that you are not sure about the insurance it follows that you cannot be sure about the opportunity?
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • redux
    • By redux 16th Feb 18, 2:16 PM
    • 18,104 Posts
    • 23,884 Thanks
    redux
    If by some quirk I become so rich as to consider funding insurance underwriting, I would expect the place to learn more would be somewhere near Lloyds, not an accommodation address in Bermuda or the Isle of Man.

    Until then, which is almost certainly never, I don't understand this scheme, and don't see any reason to. It isn't even clear whether the so-called investment here is going to the brokers or the underwriters or customers of these, or some other party.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 16th Feb 18, 2:38 PM
    • 4,095 Posts
    • 6,409 Thanks
    Malthusian
    I didn't answer that question because I don't know the answer
    Originally posted by John200
    Then I have no further questions. I'd like to invest a million pounds, please let me know where I should send your introducer fee.

    all I know is there are offers to invest in the litigation so I guess the solicitors have a reason to believe there are cases out there
    All I know is that people are being persuaded by unregulated introducers to hand over potentially millions of pounds to Allansons and a company called Mortgage Audit Services so that they can arrange for people to sue their lender. This means it is of no interest to the solicitors whether people have a case or not. Whether the case is of any merit or not they still get to spend the investors' money pursuing the case, and if it doesn't go anywhere, apparently someone in a tin shack on a beach in Bermuda is going to return all the investors' money.

    Usually 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. Only it isn't because apparently all the risk has been transferred from the investor to someone in a tin shack in Bermuda.
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 2:00 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Simple question
    Out of curiosity why would you say run for the hills without seeing the information in hand? 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 when you have not gone through it yourself?
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 2:03 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    If one day you are bored of having a lump sum of money, "invest" it in this scheme and wave it goodbye lol
    Originally posted by dealer wins
    Out of curiosity why would you say run for the hills without seeing the information in hand? 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 when you
    • msallen
    • By msallen 7th Mar 18, 2:14 PM
    • 805 Posts
    • 890 Thanks
    msallen
    Out of curiosity why would you say run for the hills without seeing the information in hand? 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 when you
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    Oh look - another brand new poster has miraculously appeared to try to convince people to "invest" in this.

    I'd be a bit more interested if they had the basic intelligence to come up with more convincing shills.
    • verybigchris
    • By verybigchris 7th Mar 18, 2:16 PM
    • 417 Posts
    • 553 Thanks
    verybigchris
    Funny how John200 and TheNobel1 both have the same writing style (run-on sentences, under-use of capital letters, using post titles, posting in single paragraphs).
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 7th Mar 18, 2:17 PM
    • 4,095 Posts
    • 6,409 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Out of curiosity why would you say run for the hills without seeing the information in hand?
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    What makes you think I haven't seen the information in hand?

    Which specific aspect of the information do you think I have missed?
    Last edited by Malthusian; 07-03-2018 at 2:31 PM.
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 2:23 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Then I have no further questions. I'd like to invest a million pounds, please let me know where I should send your introducer fee.

    All I know is that people are being persuaded by unregulated introducers to hand over potentially millions of pounds to Allansons and a company called Mortgage Audit Services so that they can arrange for people to sue their lender. This means it is of no interest to the solicitors whether people have a case or not. Whether the case is of any merit or not they still get to spend the investors' money pursuing the case, and if it doesn't go anywhere, apparently someone in a tin shack on a beach in Bermuda is going to return all the investors' money.

    Usually 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. Only it isn't because apparently all the risk has been transferred from the investor to someone in a tin shack in Bermuda.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    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.

    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! however my understanding of the opportunity is funders and claimees are kept private meaning this law does not come in to play and clients are secure? i may be wrong but i would suggest doing your own research before listening to peoples opinions about somthing they know nothing about

    "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.

    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.
    Lots of scams out their people but also lots of things that are not do you own research and make up your own mind rather then listening to peoples opinions about something they haven't even looked at
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 2:26 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Oh look - another brand new poster has miraculously appeared to try to convince people to "invest" in this.

    I'd be a bit more interested if they had the basic intelligence to come up with more convincing shills.
    Originally posted by msallen
    I am not telling people to invest or not to invest, it just grates me to see peoples opinions without any reasoning.
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 2:28 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    What makes you think I haven't seen the information in hand?

    Which specific aspect of the information do you think I have missed?
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    It was only a assumption as their was no reasoning behind the statement of get out and run
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 2:30 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Funny how John200 and TheNobel1 both have the same writing style (run-on sentences, under-use of capital letters, using post titles, posting in single paragraphs).
    Originally posted by verybigchris

    Thank you for the grammar lesson although i am sure my first reply didn't not need a separate paragraph, considering it was only a couple of sentences but very good observation skills of you.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 7th Mar 18, 2:31 PM
    • 4,095 Posts
    • 6,409 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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.
    Last edited by Malthusian; 07-03-2018 at 2:54 PM.
    • redux
    • By redux 7th Mar 18, 2:40 PM
    • 18,104 Posts
    • 23,884 Thanks
    redux
    ... it just grates me to see peoples opinions without any reasoning.
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    There are also millions of other places in the internet and the rest of the world where you can suffer that.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 7th Mar 18, 2:44 PM
    • 4,095 Posts
    • 6,409 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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.
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    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.
    Last edited by Malthusian; 07-03-2018 at 2:47 PM.
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 3:07 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    [QUOTE=Malthusian;73988572]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)

    Nope not fear of missing out more your mind only works when its open and in my opinion people should always look at all the information pro's and cons and then make a decision based on their research or a professional advisers research and not from people on forums or their next door neighbors.
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 3:10 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    There are also millions of other places in the internet and the rest of the world where you can suffer that.
    Originally posted by redux
    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.
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 7th Mar 18, 3:39 PM
    • 3,687 Posts
    • 2,186 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    Nope not fear of missing out more your mind only works when its open and in my opinion people should always look at all the information pro's and cons and then make a decision based on their research or a professional advisers research and not from people on forums or their next door neighbors.
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    But, you yourself have misrepresented important information regarding FCA and FSCS so, has your mind really been open about this or closed to a specific agenda?

    This whole FCA / FSCS has previously been adequately asked and answered (see Malthusian's posts)and yet you still attempt to misrepresent it. Oh dear.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,700Posts Today

7,662Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin