As much as I despise most plauntiff’s attorneys and their push for frivolous lawsuits and judgments in many cases much more than they should be, there are other ways to bring more fairness into the courts than cutting off financing for legitmate lawsuits. Better to put certain caps on punitive damages or pain and suffering and have more loser pays winner costs than this attempt.
The problem with litigation financing is that the companies doing it are basically investing in litigation – they were not the subject of wrong doing and have no vested interest in the case other than a big payday. All this does is encourage the BS lawsuits. The Chamber is on the right path, maybe not full regulation, but at least make the litigation financing companies responsible for any adverse settlement, including the court costs.
The Chamber only wants to remove the level legal playing field provided by the third-party litigation financers. That way its corporate members can once more bring asymmetric legal warfare to bear on any smaller entity that has the audacity to seek redress through the legal system.
large corporations can well afford coverages and can help prepare their defense. this funding is necessary to protect the rights of the every day “joe” or small business who cannot adequately finance a trial including testimony from experts in the field. no outside finance would ever be available for frivolous lawsuit as that would be pouring money down a tube. if a private investor wants to fund a suit it would be one he would had a worthy case. i see no reason to regulate those who wish to invest their funds in such activities. what would be regulated? this is just harassment.
Mr. Vaughn is correct. The Chamber is asking for yet another tool in the toolbox for big business. A quick drive down main roads in any town will show you why they’ve got quite enough already.
Why would capital invest in meritless litigation? If the courts are acting like they should and appropriately resolving civil actions then in theory capital should not pursue meritless litigation. And, particularly relevant in our current environment of big players dominating markets, startups and small businesses need an avenue of funding the litigation costs that are now inherent to our judicial system. They otherwise do not stand a chance against the sophisticated and expensive legal operations of the big dogs.
I do not think the Chamber has a leg to stand on. We all know that if they instead stood to benefit from the status quo we would be hearing all about how venture capital endeavors like this are an example of the free market in action and that any regulation is anti-capitalist.
I can tell you that even some big companies in particular think of Tivo which were innovators in their field were nearly destroyed trying to protect the patents that they rightfully owned. It is my understanding that they had to rely somewhat on litigation financing. The chamber saying that plaintiffs would have failed had they not had the financing. I would say more realistically we need to have a court system that drives along the legal process better. Payouts are the more popular topic for people to latch onto but I think that litigation expenses necessitate financing. It would be like the Chamber saying well we need to stop these banks from lending money to small business owners so that they can succeed.
As much as I despise most plauntiff’s attorneys and their push for frivolous lawsuits and judgments in many cases much more than they should be, there are other ways to bring more fairness into the courts than cutting off financing for legitmate lawsuits. Better to put certain caps on punitive damages or pain and suffering and have more loser pays winner costs than this attempt.
Dave,
The problem with litigation financing is that the companies doing it are basically investing in litigation – they were not the subject of wrong doing and have no vested interest in the case other than a big payday. All this does is encourage the BS lawsuits. The Chamber is on the right path, maybe not full regulation, but at least make the litigation financing companies responsible for any adverse settlement, including the court costs.
The Chamber only wants to remove the level legal playing field provided by the third-party litigation financers. That way its corporate members can once more bring asymmetric legal warfare to bear on any smaller entity that has the audacity to seek redress through the legal system.
large corporations can well afford coverages and can help prepare their defense. this funding is necessary to protect the rights of the every day “joe” or small business who cannot adequately finance a trial including testimony from experts in the field. no outside finance would ever be available for frivolous lawsuit as that would be pouring money down a tube. if a private investor wants to fund a suit it would be one he would had a worthy case. i see no reason to regulate those who wish to invest their funds in such activities. what would be regulated? this is just harassment.
Mr. Vaughn is correct. The Chamber is asking for yet another tool in the toolbox for big business. A quick drive down main roads in any town will show you why they’ve got quite enough already.
Why would capital invest in meritless litigation? If the courts are acting like they should and appropriately resolving civil actions then in theory capital should not pursue meritless litigation. And, particularly relevant in our current environment of big players dominating markets, startups and small businesses need an avenue of funding the litigation costs that are now inherent to our judicial system. They otherwise do not stand a chance against the sophisticated and expensive legal operations of the big dogs.
I do not think the Chamber has a leg to stand on. We all know that if they instead stood to benefit from the status quo we would be hearing all about how venture capital endeavors like this are an example of the free market in action and that any regulation is anti-capitalist.
I can tell you that even some big companies in particular think of Tivo which were innovators in their field were nearly destroyed trying to protect the patents that they rightfully owned. It is my understanding that they had to rely somewhat on litigation financing. The chamber saying that plaintiffs would have failed had they not had the financing. I would say more realistically we need to have a court system that drives along the legal process better. Payouts are the more popular topic for people to latch onto but I think that litigation expenses necessitate financing. It would be like the Chamber saying well we need to stop these banks from lending money to small business owners so that they can succeed.