Lawsuit Trolling: Investors Looking For Lawsuits To 'Invest' In
from the this-will-not-end-well dept
Thought that American society was already too litigious? You might not like this next stage of the game, wherein Wall Street investment bankers are looking to help fund various lawsuits, in return for a cut of any eventual winnings. We've already seen how this is popular in patent trolling, but it looks like it's spreading to all sorts of civil lawsuits. Now, the core concept behind this activity is reasonable: lawsuits are expensive. And if you have a legitimate case, and it's too expensive to take on the effort, getting an investor can help you bring the case and bring a party to justice. But, like so many things that Wall Street gets involved in, what can be used for good, can also be massively abused for profits. Apparently, investors are behind some really wacky lawsuits that never should have been filed, and they often push for quick settlements in order to cash out at lower costs. Of course, it's not clear how widespread this practice is in total, since lawyers often don't reveal that there are investors behind a case.Not surprisingly, the article notes that "lawsuit lending is a child of the subprime revolution," and often the lenders charge ridiculous interest rates, rather than being willing to just take a direct cut of any winnings. And, of course, these days, with the mortgage space being a weak investment, banks have to find somewhere new to put their money, and apparently lawsuits are attractive to some. The whole thing seems so open to abuse and excess that it seems likely that we're going to be hearing a lot more stories of lawsuit lending... and the resulting problems it causes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: investments, lawsuits, trolling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The 80's nuttjobs were right who knew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this really does start to take off, even money says that Walmart goes from having 3 "accident" lawsuits filed against them per day into the low hundreds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Hey brother. Rule in favor of the plaintiff and I'll give you half the profits."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
kinda scary through there i think....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I do see as a problem is that these "investors in lawsuits" are actually just making loans to law firms, which might be able to (due to other cases) pay back the loan even if the case in question fails.
It seems like the incentives would be better aligned against frivolous "trolling" lawsuits if these lenders were only allowed to actually invest in the lawsuit itself (i.e. they pay some amount of money for some percentage of the winnings, if there are any, and get nothing if the case fails).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price of Justice
Why, I see nothing wrong with the fact that the average individual cannot afford purchase an goddamn justice...
...
F*ck it, I cannot troll that hard. AC, what the hell is wrong with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Price of Justice
Isn't that already what a class action lawsuit is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Price of Justice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Price of Justice
Okay, so what is a good way to address it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue themselves
Talk about irony. And the massive profits to be had!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe we'll here about people getting justice who otherwise couldn't have afforded to get that justice. But that wouldn't interest you, would it, Mike? You're too busy being biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you think people with money would invest in? Small-time lawsuits where individuals want the few thousand bucks that they're owed, or large-time corporate lawsuits where billions are at stake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Biased against whom? Lawyers? Or do you think Mike is biased against a justice system which requires you to seek financing for a lawsuit (which isn't really a justice system at all)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only "bias" I see is in your desperation to try to read this in a way to make me look bad. I stated in the post -- quite clearly -- that the basic idea behind this is exactly that. Next time try actually reading what I wrote.
And, by the way, having an opinion is not "bias."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe this will be the start of the next bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe this will be the start of the next bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should hire a bookie and everyone can start making bets as to who will win the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Separate economic myth from reality.
A fundamental point readily available to observation: Wall Street far more often abuses for profit than it does good.
It's a capitalist / plutocrat myth that investments are ever out of *good* intentions to produce the best products and so on. Actually, almost none of the good results were due to Wall Street, but were achieved *in spite of* their machinations.
So, Mike, I ask your professional economist opinion as to how the heck we *limit* Wall Street to only good investments? Hmm? Anyone else? Perhaps some "incentive", if you buy into the part of the myth that says we can't at all restrain the benevolent capitalists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Separate economic myth from reality.
if you go seeking nothing but evil with blinders on towards any good you may stumble across... you will find nothing but pure evil and no good at all. seems a rather obvious thing to say, but few people (either hippies or capitalist pigs) take the time to look at things in any sort of context anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Credit default swaps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflict of Interest?
Justice does not come solely from dollars and cents but investment rewards do. Anything that puts more weight on the money instead of the right and lawful outcome taints the justice system as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it illegal ? No ofcourse not.. but its an easy way to kick Wall Street..
Wall street, is on the nose so Mike will cash in on that and gain a few cheap shots.
Lawyers have been doing this for years, but its ok for them, as has the banks..
You can find "no win no pay" lawyers, and you can go to a bank and get a loan to fight a court case. (depending on if you have a strong enough case).
So that fact that wall street is involved, is not surprising, (to most normal people), its common practice.
Mike, what do you think investors do ?
No Mike they dont sit there all day doing sub-prime mortages, THEY INVEST in things.
A good investor will pick and choose his investments wisely and make sound choices. Making him a good investor.
But what are you saying Mike, that investors are not allowed to invest in certain things because Mike does not agree with those.. Prompting Mike to go on the attack of Wall Street..
Fact is patents and IP exist, they are valued, and people seek to protect their works, they do not seek to stop you doing something better. But they do stop you doing something the same.
And what is wrong with that, if that is the case (and it is) just make something better and STFU..
All this whinning about how we are stopped from stealing someone elses idea, and that if we do the courts might come after us (as if that is something bad,,, it is only if you are a criminal)..
So why fear the legal system, if you work within the legal system.. All you're utopian plans all rely on massive changes to IP, patent and copyright law.
And that change is neven going to happen the way you want it too, seems you must enjoy hitting your head against the wall....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having a biased opinion is biased, and presenting opinion as fast is too.
And, by the way, having an opinion is not "bias."
But having a biased opinion is..
So Mike you can happily sit there and believe you are not biased in any way against Wall Street ?
But, like so many things that Wall Street gets involved in, what can be used for good, can also be massively abused for profits.
Sounds like bias to me.
But, like so many things that Wall Street gets involved in, what can be used for good, can also be massively abused for profits.
I would have said, that was a statement of fact by you, I can quote you directly on that. How is that opinion ?
You have not presented this article as an opinion article, you present it like all you post here as fact.
Then when questioned on it, you claim its just your "opinion".. so which is it..
Fact of fiction ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The future.... Oh crap, they have Time Warner backing them, we're doomed
Let freedoom ring... (Freedoom ringtone available now for only $9.99, get yours today while they are hot and remember, freedom isn't free, so get your 'authorized' copy today)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAHA,, hide this one too, someone does not like the truth..
Very good of you to protect 'the mike' so much..
But dont bother discussing the point, or what claims Mike has made about not being biased !!!..
Of Mike can do no wrong, in the eyes of his guard doggies..
It is a shame you do not have what it takes to present a vaible counter argument.. But I did not expect that from GD's..
Nor from Mike..
So the fact you cannot dispute my statements, and have to resort to tagging my posts. For me, and most other, shows im getting too you :)..
And the fact you cannot answer any of the comments, but ignore them, also shows you have nothing,, NOTHING.. to offer.. So in that way,, you are a perfect match up for Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHA,, hide this one too, someone does not like the truth..
About offering something, who cares about what you think or write is just nonsense every time, but I do admit you amuse me a lot, you brighten my day with your completely over the top, absurd BS and it is an easy target to when I feel like trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAHA,, hide this one too, someone does not like the truth..
Of Mike can do no wrong, in the eyes of his guard doggies..
Hi Darryl! Funny that you would make this claim when twice in the past week I proved you 100% wrong and yet you did not respond either time.
The first one was on the Tim Berners-Lee post, where you falsely claimed he proposed HTML, not "the web." This is wrong.
The second was when you claimed a photo from the Library of Congress' own collection was actually a modern photo. The Library of Congress lists it as early 1900s, however.
Would you care to reply to either one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investing in Lawsuits
Priya Kumar
http://www.sddglobal.com
high-end legal outsourcing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]