Joint action on APN

[lilikins1]

My understanding is that all other JRs are being stayed behind Pinsent. In other words they won't be heard until Pinsent reach the end of the line.

I hope people aren't pinning their hopes on any of this.

Being party to any JR should realistically only be viewed as a way of delaying enforcement.

So we are assuming APN's will never ever get thrown out of the window?

[lilikins1]

What i find really weird is that I called up Pinsent directly to talk about the joint APN and they never got back to me after the initial discussion. They obviously want Saleos in the middle for some reason. Why would that be?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So we are assuming APN's will never ever get thrown out of the window?

It's got a better chance than ads1980 winning the euromillions. It's probably also got a better chance than making a claim against a promoter.

However, (black) humour aside. I think it's very unlikely.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What i find really weird is that I called up Pinsent directly to talk about the joint APN and they never got back to me after the initial discussion. They obviously want Saleos in the middle for some reason. Why would that be?

Matt Hall (Saleos) is not involved in the Pinsent JR (film scheme investors).

The JR he's doing is with another law firm RPC acting on behalf of contractor schemes.

[webberg]

What i find really weird is that I called up Pinsent directly to talk about the joint APN and they never got back to me after the initial discussion. They obviously want Saleos in the middle for some reason. Why would that be?

Lawyers act for a client. No client = no case.

Unlike the US where a class action can be brought by a law firm even if there is no specific client, here there has to be an initiating person.

Pinsents would therefore need a client to instruct them.

A "joint JR" looks to be close to a class action and I can see some obvious problems with that.

That is NOT Saleos. As DR has pointed out, a different law firm is being used for that.

[ads1980]

Enough perhaps?

What? I shouldn't buy a euromillions ticket?

[centurian]

We did look at that but there are a number of potentially fatal problems. The fact that most people did not use an intermediary but bought direct from the provider; the provider is in the Isle of Man and not subject to UK regulation; the Manx authorities were "reluctant" to help; most of the providers and intermediaries are not regulated (FSA/FCA) and therefore the statutory compensation funds are not available; legal action is uncertain and as most providers no longer exist or have assets, there's no point. I could go on.

Which of course, cuts to the very fundamental point - people employ these providers to find the most devious ways to avoid paying HMRC - it's then very naive in the extreme to assume that they won't apply the same consideration to covering themselves against any sort of the claim.

Their first priority is protecting themselves against claims from HMRC and/or their customer.

You can’t keep snakes in your back yard and expect them to only bite your neighbours

[Dylan]

Interesting tweets today...

[lilikins1]

Interesting tweets today...

Spill the beans....

[Dylan]

"Effects of yesterday's Ingenious Pinsent Masons APN JR hearing is that participants are at risk of penalties if they don't pay on time."

"That takes the wind from the sails of the JR. Vanishingly low prospects of substantive success - and participants still at risk of penalties"