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 5
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 3:41 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    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.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    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
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 7th Mar 18, 3:44 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    Can you please take a crash course in punctuation and also learn how to quote things. It would be very useful to understand what you are blathering on about.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 7th Mar 18, 3:47 PM
    • 4,321 Posts
    • 3,839 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    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
    "research" is useless when carried out by somebody who's not competent (to carry out that particular kind of research). and people who aren't competent may well fail to recognize that: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect .

    for these reasons, most people shouldn't spend their time poring over the details of what are at best very niche investment "opportunities", and at worst outright scams. such "research" is at best a waste of time; but there's a real risk that people will convince themselves that their "research" has validated the "opportunity" when in fact they have no idea what they're doing.

    in any case, you are (just like John200, who had "coincidentally" had a similar approach) resort to generalities about "doing your own research" when you've lost the argument about the detailed problems with this "investment".
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 3:53 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Can you please take a crash course in punctuation and also learn how to quote things. It would be very useful to understand what you are blathering on about.
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    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
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 7th Mar 18, 3:57 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    Passive aggressive

    Very funny.

    On a more serious note. I tried to read your response to Malthusian but I just got lost in the jungle of words, and this is what prompted me to post.

    Perhaps if you were to actually go back and read this thread with the open mind you so reverently espouse you may actually understand how the elements relating to this 'opportunity' have already been dissected, discussed, and addressed.

    But, hey, I'm just a sad, lonely person, looking for comfort from my friends in computer land
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 4:00 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    "research" is useless when carried out by somebody who's not competent (to carry out that particular kind of research). and people who aren't competent may well fail to recognize that: the

    for these reasons, most people shouldn't spend their time poring over the details of what are at best very niche investment "opportunities", and at worst outright scams. such "research" is at best a waste of time; but there's a real risk that people will convince themselves that their "research" has validated the "opportunity" when in fact they have no idea what they're doing.

    in any case, you are (just like John200, who had "coincidentally" had a similar approach) resort to generalities about "doing your own research" when you've lost the argument about the detailed problems with this "investment".
    Originally posted by grey gym sock
    Sorry i have not seen John200 replies so can not comment but my opinion would still be to look into the company yourself do your research and make a decision and if you cant then find a qualified person to help, i would never base a decision from a opinion on the internet on a forum. With that being said i have not lost anything one it is not a argument its more a debate or my opinions and two my only real debate is to not listen to opinions and go research yourself. I am sure Allanson are FCA regulated meaning they can not miss-lead or miss-sell
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 7th Mar 18, 4:02 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Passive aggressive

    Very funny.

    On a more serious note. I tried to read your response to Malthusian but I just got lost in the jungle of words, and this is what prompted me to post.

    Perhaps if you were to actually go back and read this thread with the open mind you so reverently espouse you may actually understand how the elements relating to this 'opportunity' have already been dissected, discussed, and addressed.

    But, hey, I'm just a sad, lonely person, looking for comfort from my friends in computer land
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    I have not gone through the whole thread of everyone's reply mainly because i'm not sad to do so to keep up to date with every reply and yes maybe if i reads what i write before i post it, it may help but my ninja thumbs get the better of me sometimes.

    I wish you all the best with your cyberland dwellings
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 7th Mar 18, 4:12 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    I have not gone through the whole thread of everyone's reply mainly because i'm not sad to do so to keep up to date with every reply and yes maybe if i reads what i write before i post it, it may help but my ninja thumbs get the better of me sometimes.
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    See, this really grates. People have previously taken the time and the effort to review, investigate, and discuss this opportunity with an open mind and yet you can't be bothered to read the information obtained and discussed and yet feel comfortable enough to, in essence, tell people they do not have a clue, do not know what they are talking about because if they did they would see this as a wonderful opportunity.

    You are Donald Trump, and I claim my prize.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 7th Mar 18, 4:18 PM
    • 4,321 Posts
    • 3,839 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    Sorry i have not seen John200 replies so can not comment but my opinion would still be to look into the company yourself do your research and make a decision and if you cant then find a qualified person to help, i would never base a decision from a opinion on the internet on a forum.
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    so you can't be bothered to do as much research as reading a thread before posting to it. but you urge other people to do proper research. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    and you contend that opinions on an internet forum should absolutely always be ignored. well, if all posters wrote as much rubbish as you are doing here, that would be good advice. your (and John200's) endless verbiage is unfortunately tending to swamp over the good advice from some other posters (especially, Malthusian). either you're a shill, or you just have too much time on your hands and enjoy typing a load of rubbish. if it's the latter, please go and do that somewhere else where it won't do harm by getting in the way of useful info from other posters.
    • verybigchris
    • By verybigchris 7th Mar 18, 4:45 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    verybigchris
    ... i would never base a decision from a opinion on the internet on a forum...
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    Well at least there's one thing we agree on!

    My decision that this is a nonsense scam is based not on a strangers' opinion but on the fact that the fundamentals of the proposition don't add up. As I said earlier in the thread, it makes zero sense for an insurer to take on almost all of the risk for a small slice of the reward.

    In fact, come to think of it, why doesn't the insurance company just invest in this themselves? The downside to them would be exactly the same (covering the cost of unsuccessful litigation) but the upside would be far greater (a big payout, rather than just an insurance premium).
    • TBC15
    • By TBC15 7th Mar 18, 5:18 PM
    • 464 Posts
    • 237 Thanks
    TBC15
    Invest in litigation funding, not with a barge pole.

    No I didn't read any of the posts, the principal stinks.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 8th Mar 18, 11:04 AM
    • 4,065 Posts
    • 6,371 Thanks
    Malthusian
    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
    Based on the research discussed extensively above, what decision have you made?
    • TheNobel1
    • By TheNobel1 8th Mar 18, 12:51 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheNobel1
    Based on the research discussed extensively above, what decision have you made?
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    I thought i done enough research online for what i could find but clearly missing something, and to answer dogs comment . nope not read through the comments on here reason being unless you are a financial adviser or can point me to some factual evidence rather then opinions and statements i have no need to clutter my brain up reading all the replies and would rather research the actual product.
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 8th Mar 18, 1:57 PM
    • 7,822 Posts
    • 14,288 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    I thought i done enough research online for what i could find but clearly missing something, and to answer dogs comment . nope not read through the comments on here
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    You *thought* you done enough research online for what you could find, but then you found this forum thread which had 65 posts of discussion around the merits or otherwise of this high risk unregulated investment. You agree you are clearly missing something. Most people who had read as much as they thought they could find, but realised they may be missing something, and found more insight which had been written by people who understand the investment, insurance or legal landscape.... would read that further information, those forum posts.

    But instead, almost proudly, you reiterate that you have not read the comments here. You say that you have a lot of time on your hands but you won't read the information or opinions about the prospective investment here because you are not sad enough to read that stuff. You say everyone should research, but ignorantly claim that you are sure it can't be missold and you have not been misled. Even though people have patiently explained why the protection doesn't mean what you think it means.

    i have no need to clutter my brain up reading all the replies and would rather research the actual product.
    But your considerations around buying the product involves a consideration of risks to which you'd be exposed. One of the considerations is whether or not you would be adequately protected by FCA/FSCS and from what you have posted, you don't really understand how that works. You say:
    Must of missed the answer to the FCA/FSCS feel free to copy and paste so i can read
    We don't need to cut and paste it again from this thread to another part of this thread to enable you to read it. You are already reading the thread and you say you have time on your hands, so you can go back and read it, on the thread.

    If you think you are 'not sad enough' to read the information people have kindly presented on the thread for the benefit of readers of the thread including yourself, you will have to instead be sad enough to properly read all the FCA regulations and FSCS rules, because otherwise you won't understand the rules, as you currently don't, and may make suboptimal investment decisions due to misunderstanding risk.

    Still, no need to clutter up your pretty little head with opinions from people who are investment-savvy. Just do the direct research yourself, to the extent the information is available and reliable and you have a clue what you're doing... Oh wait; you don't.

    The problem with posters like you is that it's difficult to know if you are just trolling or are a shill for the investment company itself. And therefore whether we should fear you are here to just waste our time (which is just a bit amusing / annoying) or are actually promoting it as a good investment for your own personal gain when it's super high risk (which is a detestable practice). Either way, we can conclude that if you proudly don't want to read the existing discussion and comment on the "investment", you are not a serious independent investor in it - so either your interest in it is shameless self promotion, or you are a naive idiot.

    Of course, we do not believe for one minute that anyone with a genuine interest in the investment would join in and follow along the thread for 20 posts but have a complete lack of interest in the contents of the 65 posts made before they joined the thread. Really, you have read them, but don't fancy challenging their accuracy, so are pretending you have not read them and are putting your head in the sand about the fact that the valid negative points do exist.

    Or you genuinely haven't read them, because you're just here to troll and react to new comments rather than debate the merits or demerits of the investment as already put forward. People like that don't get much respect round here.
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 8th Mar 18, 2:19 PM
    • 1,814 Posts
    • 1,166 Thanks
    bostonerimus
    If someone is set on a course of action against the advice of very many knowledgeable people then I say good luck to them. I would not "invest" in "Litigation Funding", but if people are obtuse enough to ignore the warnings it's their look out. Of course a low post count and arguing for dubious schemes smells of selling rather than buying.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 3:48 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    very shocked
    A friend of mine asked my advice about the Allansons investment. He told me about this forum and that it had put him off the opportunity. I have gone through every message and I felt compelled to respond. So yes I have just made one post and yes this one post is as a direct response to this thread.

    The people on here criticising litigation funding have never researched the market. Litigation funding is a lucrative area of investment. I personally know many people including myself who have made fortunes in investing litigation funding. Mostly through personal injury cases. I know someone who made 6 figures from a small investment to obtain medical reports. The firm was a small one and they happened to take on a case where the claimant was disabled for life. The case was insured against the investment and the solicitors costs. The award was over 1.2 million pounds. Now work out 25% of that!. The case did not even get to court. it was settled out of it. Yes it was at the misfortune of someone else but the claimant family was grateful that a solicitor had taken the case on a no-win no fee basis. I could give you thousands of examples of this. Most underwriters are based off shore in places such as Bermuda and Cayman islands for tax purposes.

    I really hope that those making defamatory comments against underwriters are sued by them and they need funding to get out of that mess!

    I have read the Allansons proposal thoroughly. I have called the FCA, I have spoken to Box Legal and Allansons themselves. I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that this is in an excellent opportunity for investors to make returns that they are not seeing in banks.

    I cannot see how any investor can lose money on this proposal and I have advised my friend to invest heavily in this project. It is not everyday that good opportunities come along with these type of returns. The investment is secure and the FCA would not authorise these companies if they were not satisfied with their credibility

    In 2014 I invest 10k into burford capital at 1.22 a share today that share price is over £10. Burford Capital specialise in litigation funding. If it was such a scam why would the industry be doing so well?

    Litigation funding was introduced to help provide justice as it was only available to the rich and powerful - now it comes down to one simple matter how strong is the case?

    People who complain about the insurance company or brokers, when you insure a car people do it on the telephone not many people check where the underwriters are!

    I find it pathetic that people who know nothing about the litigation funding industry and how lucrative it can be are making such claims as in this thread.

    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.
    • le loup
    • By le loup 8th Mar 18, 3:57 PM
    • 3,806 Posts
    • 3,754 Thanks
    le loup
    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.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Well if you put your hundreds of thousands back into this scheme, it won't need outside funding and you can save money by not needing to advertise for funding. You become richer, we stop having to reply. Everyone happy.
    • ColdIron
    • By ColdIron 8th Mar 18, 4:03 PM
    • 4,144 Posts
    • 5,227 Thanks
    ColdIron
    I personally know many people including myself who have made fortunes

    I cannot see how any investor can lose money on this proposal

    I and many others who I know have made hundreds of thousand
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Seems legit
    • msallen
    • By msallen 8th Mar 18, 4:05 PM
    • 805 Posts
    • 889 Thanks
    msallen
    Doesn't anyone at shill-central understand that every time one of their transparent posts appear, it makes any sane person LESS likely to put money into this scheme?
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 8th Mar 18, 4:06 PM
    • 3,685 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    I have made many posts, and have read just this one post and I am similarly compelled to respond but, there is sooo much misdirection in your post I will simply focus on one aspect:

    I cannot see how any investor can lose money on this proposal and I have advised my friend to invest heavily in this project. It is not everyday that good opportunities come along with these type of returns. The investment is secure and the FCA would not authorise these companies if they were not satisfied with their credibility
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Which specific aspect of finance is the organisation FCA registered for?
    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

1,568Posts Today

6,642Users 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