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 7
    • bostonerimus
    • By bostonerimus 8th Mar 18, 9:28 PM
    • 2,285 Posts
    • 1,583 Thanks
    bostonerimus

    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

    The social consciousness of these people who have made thousands from this scheme continues to amaze me. They really are good people to want to share this with everyone.............

    This all smells like a sales pitch to me rather than a thread with legitimate questions, so let's just ignore this thread from now on and let it wither.
    Last edited by bostonerimus; 08-03-2018 at 9:41 PM.
    Misanthrope in search of similar for mutual loathing
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 8th Mar 18, 10:23 PM
    • 3,845 Posts
    • 2,289 Thanks
    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 -
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    No, I have been very specific in my point to you, one which you keep obfuscating and applying misdirection in your replies (something you seem quite adept at).

    My point, and one you continue to avoid responding to is simple... The FCA does not provide general authorisation, they provide one or more specific authorisations for one or more specific financial activities. But, because you feel you are too clever or omnipotent you have not bothered to read this thread where these deficiencies have been covered ad nauseam (with links to actual factual information not just 'alternative facts').

    So, I ask you again, what financial activity has the organisation in question been authorised to conduct by the FCA, and what activity are they actually undertaking in this scheme? I'll give you a hint... it's not the same.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • redux
    • By redux 8th Mar 18, 11:15 PM
    • 18,471 Posts
    • 24,641 Thanks
    redux
    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.

    I!!!8217;m surprised that FCA have given this the green light. Or maybe we haven!!!8217;t been told the whole truth in the above posts?
    Originally posted by HappyHarry
    Oh dear. But on the other hand someone on this thread claims to have personally made hundreds of thousands in this line of business. Perhaps this person could offer that company some consultancy advice, instead of expending so much effort addressing people who are not involved, for instance us
    • TBC15
    • By TBC15 9th Mar 18, 4:27 AM
    • 555 Posts
    • 286 Thanks
    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.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Was this David chap the foreskin obsessed mercenary that was brought in by Saul with the promise of a good marriage, pension and something to do with generous personal tax allowances for the whole of the family?

    If litigation funding had been involved what proportion of the proceeds of crime would David have walked away with?
    Last edited by TBC15; 09-03-2018 at 8:24 AM.
    • HappyHarry
    • By HappyHarry 9th Mar 18, 7:06 AM
    • 760 Posts
    • 1,116 Thanks
    HappyHarry
    I have then spoken to the FCA and there are no warnings against box legal.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    That seems unlikely as per my earlier post and the auditors notes on the statement of accounts.

    My call with the FCA did confirm that if box legal went into liquidation then I would be protected by the FSCS.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Iím going to call that a lie. Box Legal are arranging the insurance, that are not providing the insurance. Leeward are the ones providing the insurance, Box Legal are just the broker, getting paid commission (according to their published accounts) from Leeward. There is no way the FCA has said that you will be protected by the FSCS if your insurance broker goes into liquidation.

    I would rather believe the facts then someone simply posting without any evidence or research backing up what they are saying.
    Originally posted by free2bfree
    Good point, well made.
    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.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 9th Mar 18, 9:48 AM
    • 4,665 Posts
    • 7,463 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Way too much time on your hands!
    Originally posted by free2bfree


    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.
    Sounds boring. You were the one who said you'd pay to see me destroyed by qualified solicitors in a public debate. Now I'm not only offering you the chance to see that, but you wouldn't even have to pay if it happened, and suddenly you're not interested.

    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
    Erm, defamation occurs when you make false and damaging statements in public, Mr Legal Expert, which I've already done via this thread (except they're not false). I don't have to make the same statements to Box Legal's face to be liable for defamation. If any of my posts are defamatory, which they're not, defamation has already occurred. Why don't you give them another call and tell them they're being maligned?

    I've barely even said anything about Box Legal, except to state that
    1. a broker is not automatically liable for negligence if an insurer it recommends fails to pay out; negligence only arises if the broker has failed in its duty to properly research its recommended insurer (and Box Legal has specifically said they haven't so failed)
    2. promising to compensate an investor in the event of the default of a third party where no liability for negligence exists is a security known as a credit default swap
    3. credit default swaps are not covered by the FSCS.
    All of these are well-established objective facts about finance and the UK regulatory system, and if anyone wants to sue me for stating them, have at it.

    However anyone who receives an email from an unregulated introducer inviting them to invest in litigation funding to allow a struggling insurance broker (I put it to you m'Lud that describing a business making an £856k loss and whose auditors have cast doubts on its ability to continue as a going concern as struggling is fair comment) to sue some guy on the Internet, should ensure they - what's that term? - do their research.

    I will prove on this forum step by step that My 40,000 investment will give me a significant return in 12 months time.
    It would not remotely surprise me if in 12 months' time you had made a significant return on your £40,000 investment.

    Can you guess why it would not surprise me?
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 9th Mar 18, 12:40 PM
    • 12,746 Posts
    • 11,432 Thanks
    jimjames
    Oh dear. But on the other hand someone on this thread claims to have personally made hundreds of thousands in this line of business. Perhaps this person could offer that company some consultancy advice, instead of expending so much effort addressing people who are not involved, for instance us
    Originally posted by redux
    Maybe they're making hundreds of thousands because they're taking it out of the company
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • redux
    • By redux 10th Mar 18, 1:34 AM
    • 18,471 Posts
    • 24,641 Thanks
    redux
    I must admit that if I were to find myself in a position of considering using no win no fee lawyers, I would be fairly p'ed off to hear that some smug offensive semiliterate twit without legal expertise stood to make more money out of the case than either I or the lawyers.
    • guy
    • By guy 13th Apr 18, 1:14 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    guy
    Other side of the coin
    Interesting discussion,

    I have had an audit done and Allinsons are pushing me to submit a claim on NRAM .

    No win no fee but they will take 25% of the win and £2072 for the ATE insurance. If i lose or NRAM counter claim i pay nothing.
    Allinsons are in a no lose as investors pay for the litigation, costs are paid by NRAM or the ATE insurance. Presumably the 5% for the investor is paid out of the 25%.

    It all sounds sort of OK but for the fact that Allinsons will NOT tell me how much they are claiming for nor give me a copy of the report they are basing it on other than saying that they would not pursue a claim of less than £10K.

    It seems that the only loser is the mortgage co unless the insurer fails to pay back the investor in the event of a lose.

    Looking at this post i am inclined NOT to pursue via Allinsons as concerned that the insurer may not in the end pay out.
    I may contact NRAM directly as there must be something there to give Allinsons the hots for the case.
    • Tomogo
    • By Tomogo 5th May 18, 1:53 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Tomogo
    I have invested into The mortgage litigation with Allansonís, through a brokerage called Regency capital. Can not fault either company, very efficient and helpful. Assigned cases within a week and have regular updates on the progress of my cases. Most people on these sites have no idea about the investment model itself usually and only want to criticise. If you want the higher returns then step away from the banks and IFAís who are offering 2-3 percent.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 5th May 18, 9:26 AM
    • 10,634 Posts
    • 12,189 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    Unsolicited posts like these from new posters, to near to defunct threads, whether true, scam, or going to post how they were ripped off in about 3 years time, merely add to the scam-factor of the offering.

    Indeed I'd say its up to 11 now.
    Last edited by AnotherJoe; 05-05-2018 at 1:50 PM.
    • TBC15
    • By TBC15 5th May 18, 7:36 PM
    • 555 Posts
    • 286 Thanks
    TBC15
    Any other new posters wish to sing the praise for this not nice investment opportunity?
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 5th May 18, 11:19 PM
    • 4,665 Posts
    • 7,463 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Can not fault either company, very efficient and helpful.
    Originally posted by Tomogo
    You've handed them thousands of pounds of your money. Were you expecting them to act towards you like a DWP benefits officer with a hangover?

    Most people on these sites have no idea about the investment model itself usually and only want to criticise. If you want the higher returns then step away from the banks and IFAís who are offering 2-3 percent.
    Apparently the model for this investment requires its clients to join random forums they've never posted on before and solicit new investment into the scheme.

    An IFA client willing to bear investment risk will typically be offered a portfolio that has made ~8%pa over most long term time periods, with minimal risk of permanent and total capital loss. In contrast to this investment where return of capital teeters on an inverted pyramid of piffle consisting of shonky cases that should be going to the Ombudsman, not court, an insurer resident in a corrugated iron shack in Bermuda, and highly suspect interpretations of the FSCS rules.
    • eddystone506
    • By eddystone506 16th May 18, 4:18 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    eddystone506
    I was shown this scheme today and got some of the documents from the broker trying to sell me the investment but I can't see how to post them here. The main risk is that the ATE insurance doesn't pay out if the claim is unsuccessful and I can't find out anything about Leeward, the insurers. Does anyone have any documents? I've asked for them.
    • HappyHarry
    • By HappyHarry 16th May 18, 8:05 PM
    • 760 Posts
    • 1,116 Thanks
    HappyHarry
    I was shown this scheme today and got some of the documents from the broker trying to sell me the investment but I can't see how to post them here. The main risk is that the ATE insurance doesn't pay out if the claim is unsuccessful and I can't find out anything about Leeward, the insurers. Does anyone have any documents? I've asked for them.
    Originally posted by eddystone506
    Out of interest, who is the broker selling these "investments"?
    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.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 16th May 18, 8:28 PM
    • 12,746 Posts
    • 11,432 Thanks
    jimjames
    I was shown this scheme today and got some of the documents from the broker trying to sell me the investment but I can't see how to post them here. The main risk is that the ATE insurance doesn't pay out if the claim is unsuccessful and I can't find out anything about Leeward, the insurers. Does anyone have any documents? I've asked for them.
    Originally posted by eddystone506
    Not sure you're really assessing the risk too well if you think that's the main risk.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 16th May 18, 8:29 PM
    • 10,634 Posts
    • 12,189 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    I was shown this scheme today and got some of the documents from the broker trying to sell me the investment but I can't see how to post them here. The main risk is that the ATE insurance doesn't pay out if the claim is unsuccessful and I can't find out anything about Leeward, the insurers. Does anyone have any documents? I've asked for them.
    Originally posted by eddystone506
    I suspect this broker will be as reliable as the first eddystone lighthouse
    • Chrisco79
    • By Chrisco79 28th Jun 18, 11:22 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Chrisco79
    I know we're meant to be nice to newbies and everything, but that's abject nonsense. There's simply no way any genuine insurer would offer such a giveaway. And if the lawyers were able to find such a fool, why on earth would they then offer a 50% return to complete strangers instead of just putting up the money themselves?
    Originally posted by verybigchris
    I am here because I am researching this and am highly skeptical about it, but both these criticisms are factually wrong.

    1) You can't get ATE insurance for every case. ATE insurers assess the facts of the claim, the likely costs to be incurred, and the likelihood of settlement or success. They offer insurance and set their premiums on that basis. Most claims with merit settle rather than going to court, and obviously the stronger the claim the greater the likelihood of settlement and the lower likelihood of high costs. The earlier in proceedings a solicitor takes out ATE, and the fewer costs have already been incurred, the lower the ATE premium would be.

    2) To fund a client's litigation would be such a serious act of professional misconduct that it would get the solicitor struck off.
    • Chrisco79
    • By Chrisco79 28th Jun 18, 11:33 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Chrisco79
    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.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Box Legal assumes liability under the FSCS for negligent advice in the event that Leeward Insurance fails to pay a valid claim. Who decides what is a valid claim, though, I am not clear about.

    EDIT: A blog called 'Bondreview' examines this claim in detail. Their conclusion is that it is not a protected claim and therefore not covered by the FSCS.

    What would give me cause for concern is that this is not a large firm of successful solicitors. It was a two-man partnership but one of the partners left at the end of 2017. They still have not yet posted their accounts due for 2017. This appears to be a small firm trying to raise some money to get in on the growth in litigation financing. I would want to be confident, though, that it's not just an attempt to keep afloat a struggling firm, and where the litigation funding and insurance would be if it went under.
    Last edited by Chrisco79; 28-06-2018 at 12:06 PM.
    • dealer wins
    • By dealer wins 28th Jun 18, 11:58 AM
    • 5,982 Posts
    • 11,540 Thanks
    dealer wins
    IMHO anyone "investing" here will almost certainly lose every penny.
    Choose life
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

4,422Posts Today

8,306Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @PheebsVyse: We had to watch @MartinSLewis instead of bake off tonight and mum and dad have gone and saved £662 + £200 off tax this yea?

  • Hi folks. We've just left st George's hall. Am shattered. Hope you enjoyed the show. Martin And thanks Oli for twe? https://t.co/vpHEa53rug

  • And that's a wrap! This is MSE Oli signing off - the next tweet will be from Martin. #MartinLewis

  • Follow Martin