The one stop source for breaking news, expert analysis, and podcasts on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares

Join ShareProphets at less than 2p per article

> All the big AIM fraud exposés

> 300 articles and podcasts a month

> Hot share tips

> Original investigations by our experienced team

> No ads, no click-bait, no auto-play videos

Find out more

Quindell Infamy they’ve all got it In for Me – 2 press comments of note

By Tom Winnifrith, The Sheriff of AIM | Sunday 10 August 2014

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

This is not today’s Quindell (QPP) main article, the Bulletin Board morons are going to have to wait a bit longer for today’s red flags. However I bring them a couple of press comments to keep them occupied pro tem.

The first is from the Sunday Times. I think it is self-explanatory. But I think rather shows whose side the press is on. And no I did not plant it.

The second is from the Law Gazette. I would suggest that it rather imperils a business model based on having a small number of lawyers – Quindell has only 59 registered solicitors – and automating cases is going to face a bit of a problem.  I quote:

A judge has found a law firm in breach of duty after it assessed a client’s case for compensation without a face-to-face meeting and misjudged the extent of their case...

The judge said: ‘The system set up by the defendants involving as it did, the extensive use of questionnaires and standardised letters with very little personal contact with the client enabled them to deal with a very high number of claims at limited cost.

‘The disadvantage however of such a system is that it is heavily reliant on the client carefully reading all the correspondence and filling the questionnaires in accurately.

You can read the article HERE










Filed under:

Never miss a story.

This area of the site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.

More on QPP



  1. Juicin Drumroll


    You owe these BBMs a huge debt. They are providing you with millions of free publicity!

    Maybe when this is all over as a thank you you could rent a van, go around the back of Halfords & collect some new accommodation for the idiots who’ve bet the farm on this dodgy POS.

    It would be interesting to see the stats of site visitors & new subscribers post Prufrock.

  2. TW, If my memory serves, did you not accuse a poster on here of being a paedophile?
    Can you explain the difference between that and the comment made by the ignorant oaf on Twitter? In other words, have you been reported to the police for your less than savoury comment?

  3. Addick

    Memory implies a brain and your posting history suggests that yours is missing.

    A poster repeatedly asserted that I had an undisclosed short position in QPP Then he asserted he had PROOF.

    I have no short in QPP

    To try to make him see how silly he was I said “what if I say you are a paedo, hey I have proof you are a paedo.

    I do not think Senor Grande is a paedo. I endeavour just to make him appreciate how it feels to be lied about in this way.

    If he wishes to sue for libel for me making this tasteless imagery fine – I could of course counter sue as he knows well. It is not a police matter but a civil one and I am happy to go to court.

    That you equate that with a death threat shows once again that you have no brain.


  4. That you believe the Twitter oaf was making a real death threat rather implies you are of a very nervous disposition or, are merely a hypocrite.
    He shouldn’t have done it, but you are clearly happy to put your ugly mug above the parapet and you know full well how social media leads to this sort of thing.
    A pity you haven’t demonstrated a tad more maturity on this one and simply shrugged it off.

Enter your comment below. Fields marked * are required. You must preview your comment first before finally posting.

Site by Everywhen