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 6
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 8th Mar 18, 4:08 PM
    • 3,686 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    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?
    Originally posted by msallen
    But, interestingly the more they, and we post, the higher the entry gets in Google searches.

    So, win win really.

    EDIT: Just looked on Google (17:53) and other than paid for entries, we are the top, numero uno entry. Come on free2bfree, lets have ya
    Last edited by cloud_dog; 08-03-2018 at 5:55 PM.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 4:24 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    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:

    Which specific aspect of finance is the organisation FCA registered for?
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    The fact that they are authorised and regulated by the FCA gives me enough security to believe that they are not misleading me. I called them up yesterday and discussed the ATE insurance that they are providing to Allansons and I was satified with their response. I have then spoken to the FCA and there are no warnings against box legal. They are are credible company that have issued polices to over 250 law firms. I am totally satisfied with them as are 250 law firms who have taken policies protecting their livelihood.

    I would rather believe the facts then someone simply posting without any evidence or research backing up what they are saying.
    • grey gym sock
    • By grey gym sock 8th Mar 18, 5:12 PM
    • 4,323 Posts
    • 3,847 Thanks
    grey gym sock
    <more vague generalities, without answering a direct question>
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    unlike cloud_dog, i don't have the patience to try going through the detailed flaws in this so-called investment yet again.

    neither you, nor your earlier incarnations, TheNobel1 and John200, ever address the issues. every time, you deflect.

    so i'll just ask this: can you confirm that your real name is ShillyMcShillface?
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 5:25 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    [QUOTE=grey gym sock;73994418]unlike cloud_dog, i don't have the patience to try going through the detailed flaws in this so-called investment yet again.

    neither you, nor your earlier incarnations, TheNobel1 and John200, ever address the issues. every time, you deflect.

    so i'll just ask this: can you confirm that your real name is ShillyMcShillface?[/QUOTE

    What are the issues? I will address them.

    My call with the FCA was clear. My call with Box legal was clear. My call with Allansons was clear.

    I have personally made hundreds of thousands from litigation funding. I have funded cases that have won and the insurance has not mattered. I have also funded cases that have lost and I have been paid out from the insurance policy. I have invested in litigation funding companies listed on the stock exchange.

    I have first hand evidence that litigation funding makes investors money, it help claimants who do not have the knowledge or resources to fight injustice and/or strong claims. I have first hand experience that insurance does pay out when a case loses.

    If the board of burford litigation or woodford litigation or harbour or even the association of litigation funders could read this right now. It would be a great sight to see you argue with these qualified solictors and barristers. You would be defeated. In fact I would pay to watch you being lost for words. Absolutely no clue.

    What evidence do you have in making your statements? any first hand evidence? or just silly child like comment like asking if my name is shilly mcshillface!
    • verybigchris
    • By verybigchris 8th Mar 18, 5:35 PM
    • 416 Posts
    • 551 Thanks
    verybigchris
    Hi free2bfree. Are you able to explain why any insurer would agree to take on all of the risk for only a small slice of the reward? I have posted this question before in the hope that John200 or theNobel1 would answer it, but to no avail.

    The thing is, I have no problem with litigation funding per se. It's a very simple proposition: expected positive NPV, but with high initial outflow and high uncertainty of future inflows, meaning investors get rewarded both for fronting the money and for taking on the risk. That's a basic model I have no problem with.

    What doesn't fit with this specific venture is that the risk/reward is completely screwed. It makes no sense for the party who takes on all the risk, not to also be the party who takes on all the reward. That's why this stinks to me of a scam, and so far nobody's been able to explain otherwise.
    • TBC15
    • By TBC15 8th Mar 18, 5:39 PM
    • 464 Posts
    • 238 Thanks
    TBC15
    But, interestingly the more they, and we post, the higher the entry gets in Google searches.

    So, win win really.
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    Interesting, I'm not really au fait with how search engines work. But for example if every forum member said s!!! idea on this post would Google bring to the top of the pile Investing in litigation or some other investment product that promises returns on someone else's misery?
    Last edited by TBC15; 08-03-2018 at 5:42 PM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 8th Mar 18, 5:39 PM
    • 4,071 Posts
    • 6,379 Thanks
    Malthusian
    My call with the FCA was clear. My call with Box legal was clear. My call with Allansons was clear.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    You haven't called Leeward Insurance, then? Long-distance calls to Bermuda don't cost that much these days. Why not give them a call and ask them for independently audited accounts showing that they have sufficient financial strength to compensate all Allansons investors, should it be required?

    During your phone call, did Allansons explain why these potential litigants need to sue their mortgage company in the courts when they have the option of claiming redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service?

    Did the FCA confirm that the FSCS will cover a credit default swap arrangement where an insurance broker promises to compensate investors should an insurer fail to pay out, even if no negligence has arisen? (You don't have to bother answering that one.)

    If the board of burford litigation or woodford litigation or harbour or even the association of litigation funders could read this right now. It would be a great sight to see you argue with these qualified solictors and barristers. You would be defeated. In fact I would pay to watch you being lost for words. Absolutely no clue.
    How much would you pay? Since you're so chummy with Allansons, perhaps you can persuade them to hold an open debate via Skype.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 8th Mar 18, 5:50 PM
    • 4,071 Posts
    • 6,379 Thanks
    Malthusian
    In fact, let's put your money where your mouth is. Name the time and the Skype account and I'll happily argue the merits of this investment in public with a representative of Allansons, Box Legal, Leeward Insurance, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. I'll put £100 on the table if you're game.

    We can get three experienced MSE members who haven't yet taken part in this thread to act as independent adjudicators and vote at the end on whether they consider this an attractive investment. (Jamesd would surely be up for it; anyone who invests in pawned jewellery can't be accused of being anti innovative investments.) Whoever carries the debate wins £100.

    Up for it? I mean obviously the £100 is trivial to someone clever enough to make hundreds of thousands of pounds from risk-free investments, but either way you get to watch me destroyed by the finest legal minds and insurance experts that Bolton and Bermuda have to offer.
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 8th Mar 18, 5:59 PM
    • 3,686 Posts
    • 2,185 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    The fact that they are authorised and regulated by the FCA gives me enough security to believe that they are not misleading me.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Well, in that case you have simply confirmed what some of us thought. The FCA covers and provides authorisation on specific financial activity, or a range of, but not carte blanch. And, in amongst your extensive (sic) research and investigations it is this aspect where you fall down, and without it the whole pretence falls down.

    Soooo, you are either Donald Trump or a numpty? Come on which one?
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 6:50 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    Hi free2bfree. Are you able to explain why any insurer would agree to take on all of the risk for only a small slice of the reward? I have posted this question before in the hope that John200 or theNobel1 would answer it, but to no avail.

    The thing is, I have no problem with litigation funding per se. It's a very simple proposition: expected positive NPV, but with high initial outflow and high uncertainty of future inflows, meaning investors get rewarded both for fronting the money and for taking on the risk. That's a basic model I have no problem with.

    What doesn't fit with this specific venture is that the risk/reward is completely screwed. It makes no sense for the party who takes on all the risk, not to also be the party who takes on all the reward. That's why this stinks to me of a scam, and so far nobody's been able to explain otherwise.
    Originally posted by verybigchris
    I have been involved in funding litigation for over ten years. This is not a scam. I will explain your confusion. Let me give you a basic example. My house insurance and car insurance is very low compared to their value. Why would these insurance companies take the risk in insuring my car and house worth over a million pounds for very little payment. This is the same. I knew someone who insured a 80 k car his first monthly premium was paid - the vehicle was stolen and taken out of the country and never recovered - the insurance paid out. Again why would the insurance company take such a huge risk on such a small payment. This is their industry.

    The algorithm and the brains that work in insurance companies are far greater than mine and from the looks of it anyone else on this forum. They manage the risk and ascertain the premiums accordingly. the same applies in litigation funding cases. Each case is judged on its own merits and then insured accordingly.

    If I wanted to sue cloud dog for defamation, it is highly unlikely that a solicitor would even take my case on a no win no fee basis because the chances of winning are slim. It is highly unlikely that I would find a third party investor to fund my case and It is highly unlikely that an insurance company would insure this case.

    On the other hand if a person crossing the road was hit by an ocado lorry resulted in a claimant losing his legs. I have no doubt that the person would have no shortage of lawyers wanting to take the cases on a no win no fee basis. The law firm would have no shortage of investors to fund the expert medical and phychological reports for the claim and the law firm and the investor would have no shortage of obtaining insurance at a very low premium. Simple reason because the case has a very very high chance of being settled outside of court.

    The insurance company before insuring a case will assess the likelihood of success if a case is likely to lose. the case may not be insured and if it were to be insured then the premium would be huge. The same way the premium of my car would be high in a high car theft zone.

    With this Allansons investment I only came across it from a friend last night. I did not know about it before. I have read their brochure and conducted the due diligence on behalf of my friend by calling all the parties involved. This all make very good sense and is entirely plausible. The solicitors will not take on a case on a no win no fee basis unless they can clearly see that there is a breach of contract . to do so would not make any business sense. If the evidence is clear and overwhelming the banks will simply not contest the claim. Therefore the insurance company would be happy to issue a low premium knowing that each case has a high chance of success.

    Someone else has said why dont these claimant do it themselves. If this was the case then we still would not be hearing ppi adverts on the radio still.; people would book directly with hotels and airlines and there would be no need for travel agents. its a silly thing to say. I dont do my own fillings, I go to the dentist. The main reason I can see from the literature that p[people will use a solicitor is that the FCA in there statement last year have said that people can claim for consequential loss and distress. This is where the banks will be put to task. As the figures will vary from the banks amount. If I lost an asset as a result of the bank unfairly depriving me of money that i could have had at the time to save the asset then I should rightly be able to claim for loss of that asset and any other consequential loss or distress. People can do it themselves for sure, but would you pull your own wisdom tooth out. Im sure you can but i am not sure the job will be as good as a dentist.

    For your question -about risk and reward. from my conversation with box legal each policy is insured to a maximum of 25,000 , the premium is around £400. I do not see how this is totally screwed in the risk/reward department. Its a simply insurance policy - this is the nature of their business. In most cases the insurers are exposed to more than the premium but that is why very clever computers and people working for these companies get the premium right. if a case loses they pay out if it doesnt then they take the premium. I dont see where it is screwed. Each case is likely to win in any event. Really Allansons shouldn't be wasting money on the insurance but they do this to protect themselves and the investor. I cannot see the law firm taking on a single case on a no win no fee basis unless they have passed initial tests as to the claim size and clear evidence of a breach on the banks part.
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 6:53 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    Interesting, I'm not really au fait with how search engines work. But for example if every forum member said s!!! idea on this post would Google bring to the top of the pile Investing in litigation or some other investment product that promises returns on someone else's misery?
    Originally posted by TBC15
    someone else's misery. Try telling David who could not take Goliath to court because they didnt have access to money. However now with litigation funding, David can now take Goliath to court on a no win no fee basis meaning they dont have to feel the pressure of paying the lawyers if the case loses. When David wins. David will thank the lawyers, the investor and the insurer and say that thank you for giving me justice. otherwise my misery would have continued.
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 7:14 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    You haven't called Leeward Insurance, then? Long-distance calls to Bermuda don't cost that much these days. Why not give them a call and ask them for independently audited accounts showing that they have sufficient financial strength to compensate all Allansons investors, should it be required?

    During your phone call, did Allansons explain why these potential litigants need to sue their mortgage company in the courts when they have the option of claiming redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service?

    Did the FCA confirm that the FSCS will cover a credit default swap arrangement where an insurance broker promises to compensate investors should an insurer fail to pay out, even if no negligence has arisen? (You don't have to bother answering that one.)

    How much would you pay? Since you're so chummy with Allansons, perhaps you can persuade them to hold an open debate via Skype.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    I am not chummy with Allansons. I only discovered this opportunity yesterday and I was shocked that you and a few others were trying to put my friend off. My friend is making 1 % in banks. he is losing money year on year. He works hard for his money and he wanted a safe and secure investment and I was appalled at these comments without any substance. My friend has now been in contact and is going ahead with the investment as he was with me during all my calls and due diligence. Why do you not take the time to call Allansons or box legal or the FCA.

    I do not need to call Leeward. My friends contract is with Allansons. Allansons contract is with Box legal. They are all regulated and are not allowed to mislead. I am happy that both box legal and Allansons have insurance and box legal having already serviced 250 law firms with no red marks against their name. I am totally satisfied that Allansons would pay the £4,000 back to my friend if a case lost. If my friend invested in ten cases it is highly unlikely all ten cases will fail. I have no doubt that the one that do fail Allasons would repay the £4,00 as agreed otherwise there would have been a fraud committed. The FCA and the solicitors regulation authority would not authorise these companies unless they were satisfied with their credibility. Leeward is irrelevant to anyone. The contract is with Allansons who have insurance.

    I have already answered why the claimants will need a lawyer as they can claim for consequential loss and distress and therefore the figures may vary. Not all claimants are as clever as you to do things by themselves in a court of law. I know people who use solicitors to fill out speeding tickets still.

    My call with the FCA did confirm that if box legal went into liquidation then I would be protected by the FSCS. They also confirmed that there are no red flags on leeward and they also confirmed that box legal were a credible company with no flags.

    In fact I myself will personally be making an investment of 10 cases that is £40,000 and I will duly report on this forum the dealings I have with allansons and the returns that I make. I will prove on this forum step by step that My 40,000 investment will give me a significant return in 12 months time.

    You should call Allansons and Box Legal and FCA and report your findings. I cant stand people preventing people from making money
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 7:17 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    In fact, let's put your money where your mouth is. Name the time and the Skype account and I'll happily argue the merits of this investment in public with a representative of Allansons, Box Legal, Leeward Insurance, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. I'll put £100 on the table if you're game.

    We can get three experienced MSE members who haven't yet taken part in this thread to act as independent adjudicators and vote at the end on whether they consider this an attractive investment. (Jamesd would surely be up for it; anyone who invests in pawned jewellery can't be accused of being anti innovative investments.) Whoever carries the debate wins £100.

    Up for it? I mean obviously the £100 is trivial to someone clever enough to make hundreds of thousands of pounds from risk-free investments, but either way you get to watch me destroyed by the finest legal minds and insurance experts that Bolton and Bermuda have to offer.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Way too much time on your hands! just do this the proper way research the industry and the market the opportunity and speak to experts at woodford litigation or call box legal and report your findings. Why dont you try to tell box legal what you are saying on this forum. Get hit with a law suit for defamation and then we can read the court transcripts. and you can post the results
    • free2bfree
    • By free2bfree 8th Mar 18, 7:26 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    free2bfree
    Well, in that case you have simply confirmed what some of us thought. The FCA covers and provides authorisation on specific financial activity, or a range of, but not carte blanch. And, in amongst your extensive (sic) research and investigations it is this aspect where you fall down, and without it the whole pretence falls down.

    Soooo, you are either Donald Trump or a numpty? Come on which one?
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    So you are saying the the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority and these companies relevant insurance providers all think that box legal and allansons are not credible and like to mislead the public and you are further saying that 250 law firms that have used box legal are numpties....

    somehow I believe the regulatory bodies over you or that malnutrition guy -
    • John-K
    • By John-K 8th Mar 18, 7:52 PM
    • 654 Posts
    • 1,008 Thanks
    John-K
    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.
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    Hey, Iím not uneducated, I have a PhD!

    Thatís not important right now, though. What is more important in terms of my ability to make a determination on an investment is my decades in the city.

    Like others, I say it sounds like a ludicrous proposition, it makes no sense, and no-one who has popped up, like you, with a fresh login to argue otherwise has done a decent job of it.

    How much have you invested, or how much will you invest?
    • John-K
    • By John-K 8th Mar 18, 8:03 PM
    • 654 Posts
    • 1,008 Thanks
    John-K
    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
    Originally posted by TheNobel1
    The grammar, punctuation and spelling are not irrelevant, so mentioning them is not without reason. Your written English is execrable, strongly suggesting that you have a low level of education, and probably are unlikely to have the backbround to adequately understand what you are writing about

    I know that it seems like nit-picking to point out the difference between lose and loose, or to note that you do not know how to punctuate, but these are tells, they are important signs that you do not have a legal or financial background.

    It is possible that they are misleading here, so Iíll just ask, do you have enough financial and legal knowledge to advise here?
    • redux
    • By redux 8th Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    • 18,099 Posts
    • 23,875 Thanks
    redux
    This thread is becoming more absurd than that new sitcom ...
    • fwor
    • By fwor 8th Mar 18, 8:46 PM
    • 5,993 Posts
    • 4,049 Thanks
    fwor
    <<< a lot of words - seriously - a great deal of text >>>
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Wow, free2bfree, you only heard about this "opportunity" yesterday, but you've joined this forum today and written 1559 words (or put another way, well over 8 thousand characters, including spaces) in defence of it!

    Those of a sceptical disposition are likely to think that you may have a vested interest in promoting and defending the product...
    • Flobberchops
    • By Flobberchops 8th Mar 18, 8:47 PM
    • 722 Posts
    • 523 Thanks
    Flobberchops
    I have two meta-questions.

    First, the ardent apologists for this scam, sorry scheme (John and the other account) - can you confirm you are yourselves investors in this company? Can you show us some proof of your returns, with personal information of course redacted? Also, while we're playing, would you like to go on record denying any personal interests in the company?

    Second: free2bfree, by your own description you're rich. Why waste your valuable time "educating" skeptics, surely you ought to know the futility and poor return on man-hours? Just speaking for myself here, but if I found a guaranteed get rich quick scheme I would pour money into it, reinvest my gains in it, and keep it an absolute secret while laughing my backside off. I wouldn't waste my time making increasingly desperate posts on internet forums justifying myself. In a nutshell, why do you care what we think?
    I work for a UK bank, but any comments made on this forum are solely my personal opinion. Caveat Emptor!
    • HappyHarry
    • By HappyHarry 8th Mar 18, 9:20 PM
    • 595 Posts
    • 873 Thanks
    HappyHarry
    Entertaining as this thread is, has anyone looked at the latest accounts of Box Legal?

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04871657/filing-history

    Latest accounts show a loss of £856k on a turnover of £636k, and page 6 states that due to not meeting FCA requirements, there is the potential that the company may not be considered an ongoing concern.

    Iím surprised that FCA have given this the green light. Or maybe we havenít been told the whole truth in the above posts?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser. Any comments I make here are intended for information / discussion only. Nothing I post here should be construed as advice. If you are looking for individual financial advice, please contact a local Independent Financial Adviser.
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

1,714Posts Today

7,918Users 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