Skip to main content

Crowdfunding Lawsuits

Has the popularity of crowdfunding reached the litigation realm? With the appearance of companies like LexShares, it appears so. Crowdfunding, or funding a project or venture by raising monetary contributions from a large number of people, typically via the internet, has grown tremendously in popularity over the last five years. In a typical crowdfunding endeavor, the person with the idea or project seeks funding from individuals who are interested in benefiting from, or being related to a funded project, through a third-party platform that brings the groups together. Kickstarter and GoFundMe are among the popular crowdfunding platforms that have been used successfully to fund filmmaking, video games, technology products, and even Super PACs for political campaigns.

Just as it is expensive to finance the making of a film or the development of new technology, funding litigation can be equally costly. Though, for example, a small business may have a claim that is likely to lead to a large verdict or settlement, the costs of initiating the litigation and pretrial proceedings may be prohibitive. While plaintiff’s attorneys have long recognized this reality and have negotiated contingency agreements to bring cases that plaintiffs could not otherwise afford, crowdfunding allows for a few or many unrelated investors to share in the risk. LexShares is one of the first companies to do this- the company selects from its applicants commercial claims determined by its team of experts  to have strong merit. Then, the claims are offered to accredited investors through a registered broker-dealer. Investors must be accredited, as defined by the SEC, and meet certain financial and net worth requirements. If enough accredited investors decide to fund the litigation that the fundraising goal is met, LexShares receives a portion of the fund for its fee, and the balance goes to the commercial plaintiff to fund the suit. Should the plaintiff prevail, the investors receive a return based proportionally to their investment. If the claim fails, the plaintiff does not have to repay the investors.

The company hopes that this will be a way for smaller companies to gain leverage against larger companies who may have stolen ideas, but have almost limitless litigation resources. Though this David vs. Goliath concept is appealing for many, the success of this new style of litigation financing will likely depend on the size of investors’ returns in a market that is far from certain.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades

It’s that time of year again. Law students across the country are poring over their class notes and supplements, putting the finishing touches on their outlines, and fueling their all-night study sessions with a combination of high-carb snacks and Java Monsters. This can mean only one thing: exam time is approaching.

If you’re looking for a brief but effective guide to improving your exam performance, the O’Quinn Law Library has the book for you. Alex Schimel’s Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades, now in its second edition, provides a clear and concise strategy for mastering the issue-spotting exams that determine the majority of your grade in most law school classes. Schimel finished second in his class at the University Of Miami School Of Law, where he taught a wildly popular exam workshop in his 2L and 3L years, and later returned to become Associate Director of the Academic Achievement Program. The first edition of his book was written shortly after he finished law school, …

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …