Skip to main content

Crowdfunding Lawsuits

By
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.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more