The idea of a US lawyer acting on a contingency basis is a good one, i.e. if the lawyer wins, the investors pay an agreed certain percentage of fees and if the investors lost the case, then no fees is payable.
1) Lawyers in this manner will work harder to ensure they win the case, so that they can collect the fees. Investors and lawyers interest are coincidental 2) Some investors may hestiate to take up the case if ask to pay the legal fees not sure whether they win the case. If no case is taken and the financial institutions are not paying, then it will be a 100% loss. If the case is taken up the contingency basis, and investors lost the case, they do not have to pay anything, and if they win, they collect the amount invested less the legal fees. In this way, it is better than no action at all. 3) Many investors invested in those structured products in varying amounts. The amount range from S$5,000 to S$500,000/= or more. For contingency basis each investors pay a agreed certain percentage of the legal fees if they win and nothing if they lost the case. For the other type of case, each investor may have to pay a fixed amount irrespective of the amount invested. Furthermore, they have to pay the legal fees win or lost. Therefore, the contingency basis will enable all investor to join the suing. 4) Suppose the investors lost the case, they have the pleasure of seeing the whole episode on the sale of structured product re-enacted in the court and the public will be more careful in buying any structured products in future. Further, the reputation of the FIs will be further dented.
Highlighted this before, Contingency might not work here, because due the legislative system hereabouts, lawyers have this nagging 'concern' such cases might be thrown out before even proceedings begin
given the 'complexity' of such cases, who wants to work their **** off for someone else only to find out they WONT even get paid for they first tea briefing
The idea of a US lawyer acting on a contingency basis is a good one, i.e. if the lawyer wins, the investors pay an agreed certain percentage of fees and if the investors lost the case, then no fees is payable.
ReplyDelete1) Lawyers in this manner will work harder to ensure they win the case, so that they can collect the fees. Investors and lawyers interest are coincidental
2) Some investors may hestiate to take up the case if ask to pay the legal fees not sure whether they win the case. If no case is taken and the financial institutions are not paying, then it will be a 100% loss. If the case is taken up the contingency basis, and investors lost the case, they do not have to pay anything, and if they win, they collect the amount invested less the legal fees. In this way, it is better than no action at all.
3) Many investors invested in those structured products in varying amounts. The amount range from S$5,000 to S$500,000/= or more. For contingency basis each investors pay a agreed certain percentage of the legal fees if they win and nothing if they lost the case. For the other type of case, each investor may have to pay a fixed amount irrespective of the amount invested. Furthermore, they have to pay the legal fees win or lost. Therefore, the contingency basis will enable all investor to join the suing.
4) Suppose the investors lost the case, they have the pleasure of seeing the whole episode on the sale of structured product re-enacted in the court and the public
will be more careful in buying any structured products in future. Further, the reputation of the FIs will be further dented.
Highlighted this before, Contingency might not work here, because due the legislative system hereabouts, lawyers have this nagging 'concern' such cases might be thrown out before even proceedings begin
ReplyDeletegiven the 'complexity' of such cases, who wants to work their **** off for someone else only to find out they WONT even get paid for they first tea briefing