Collyer Bristow’s future looks secure as it defeats Innovator One claim By Margaret Taylor 18 May 2012 11:53 17 December 2015 13:05 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 13:09 Looks like a comprehensive defeat, which must cast doubt on Green and Enyo’s judgement. Collyer Bristow’s costs must also be significant. Who will have to fork out for those? Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 16:18 @1.09…that’s somewhat harsh and a little naive. Litigation is won and lost on regular basis and all top litigation departments experience defeat. There might be an appeal? Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 17:51 Yes it’s only one defeat but it’s a bad one for Enyo. They managed to persuade a third party funder to pump £5m into this case, presumably on the basis of what they considered to be good prospects of success. It will be more difficult for Enyo to persuade that third party funder (or indeed another third party funder) to back future cases. For a boutique litigation practice that is a real problem – if your USP is that, unlike full service firms, you will take work on a contingency/full CFA/partial CFA basis but you can’t secure third party funding to provide cashflow, it presents a problem. Reply Link Martin 18 May 2012 at 18:48 Wouldn’t third party funders have done a lot of dd themselves, especially with £5m on the line? Would seem to indicate they thought it a good case also Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 18:54 Would that be five years work for not very much for Enyo then. Bad judgement or not it makes for lean times Lets hope there’s a compensating Big One in the pipeline Of course they’ll appeal ; no choice surely Reply Link Anonymous 18 May 2012 at 22:34 There might indeed be an appeal, if a funder has a lot of money to waste. The judgment speaks for itself: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/1321.html&query=innovatorone&method=boolean Wonder if the Claimants have read it. Bet the funders have. Reply Link Anonymous 19 May 2012 at 09:20 1.09 – Enyo instigated the claim – so this doesn’t apply. If it was a difficult claim they should never have let it get to a trial. The comparison with a top litigation department is, well, naive. Reply Link Anonymous 20 May 2012 at 11:32 Enyo also lost the Ackerman case against BLP. They were on a CFA on that case too. Their cashflow must have taken a real pummeling Reply Link Anonymous 21 May 2012 at 17:40 @9:20 – I suspect one of the reasons why the case got to trial (and then to judgment) was the insurance dispute referred to in the article. I understand the various layers of CB’s PI cover may not have been written “back to back” (ie with the same policy wording, especially as regards aggregation of claims). Accordingly, the primary layer was saying it was a single claim (ie only one lot of £2m) and excess layer was saying it was multiple claims. Based on the wording for their particular layer, both could have been correct. Which means there was probably not enough cash to be put on the table on behalf of CB to make the case go away. Had there not been a cover dispute, methinks enough would have been offered to see the case settle. Agree with those comments above about this result having a very negative impact on Enyo’s bottom line. Reply Link Jon 22 May 2012 at 00:29 The adverse findings are largely factual, so an appeal looks pointless. One of my friends took part in this scheme and was consistently told the case was a winner – not only before but during and after trial. I don’t know what trial the lawyers were watching but evidently not the same one as the judge. This case really does raise questions. This isn’t a case of the investors “wanting their day in court”. They didn’t. What they wanted, well certainly what my friend wanted, was some of his money back. One has to question why the lawyers took what was clearly always a bad case to the nth degree. Reply Link Anonymous 22 May 2012 at 14:17 Jon, I have a little sympathy for your friend BUT it’s not as if he’s going to have to pay the defendants’ costs – the ATE insurers (who will have received no premium because the case was not a “success”) will look after that – or much for his own lawyers’ fees given that Enyo was on a discounted rate CFA spread over more than 500 punters. At the end of the day, he decided to invest in a tax avoidance scheme that any sensible investor should have realised was too good to be true. You pay your money and take your chance. Reply Link Anonymous 23 May 2012 at 08:57 The funders, ATE insurers and their re-insurers would have all done extensive DD themselves. The whole point of TPF and ATE is transfer of risk and in this circumstance a number of entities have lost out. With the sums involved I’m sure there will still be plenty of finger pointing! Reply Link Anonymous 27 May 2012 at 12:31 Well done Mr Green. Telling investors for 6 years that this is as near to unlosable as litigation gets. A bit surprising that a new firm like Enyo would stick by him. Maybe they should cut their losses and get rid of him and the case? Doesn’t reflect particularly well on a new firm of litigation specialists to lose one like this… Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.