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

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

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 …