So the legal system is rigged against the small guys to a point they need an expensive life line. And yet the life line is a bigger story and the problem itself.
The lifeline isnt really a problem in fact many (in this video) argue its a solution to help the little guy. All some are saying is it may need regulation.
@@nickg2561no, the lifeline isn't the problem. The problem happens when the lawsuit award doesn't go to the victims for the losses AND the damages from intrusive personal information gathering and slander.
big companies are the ones demanding regulation, that speaks volumes to me. consider if you had a case against walmart, monsanto or amazon what would you do?
I think its a great idea. This is a great idea. It allows the small guy to go up aginst the Big Shark companies. Imagine you are a small farmer, and a big oil company has a spill that destroys your land,you can have a way to get justice and fair compensation without settling.Especially if you cant initailly afford the lawyers fees.
The farmer who grew jalapeno peppers only had one customer. That is not good business. What if that client went out of business? Who would the farmer have sued then? Since he won his case, I must assume that he had a valid argument but he also put himself in that position.
agreed that was bad business on his part unless his contract stipulated all his product goes to them in which case he had every right to sue the sh it out of them and they should of held up their end of the agreement
@@nickg2561 I don't begrudge him suing this client and nor am I questioning the fact that he had a legitimate grievance against them but he was in a very vulnerable position because, as I said, there are many ways that this could have gone sideways. His one client could have been bought by another company which would have voided that contract and maybe the new owners wouldn't want to buy from him because they already had their own suppliers. He's very lucky that he had that option.
@@georgfriedrichhandel4390the sriracha guys insisted on exclusivity so their competitors couldn’t get their peppers… not the farmer’s fault. Somebody would have been in it or Sriracha doesn’t exist.
@guymontag5084 Yes and that's why many chicken farmers are so deep in debt. These farmers have to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars because these companies require said upgrades and if any farmer doesn't make the required upgrades, companies won't buy chickens from those farmers. It's bad business for the latter.
10:40 - "But after I signed..." Of course you didn't "understand" the terms until AFTER you signed something. Don't sign something you don't understand.
We should encourage companies to enter this space. As the number of the players in the market increase, the more options litigants will have. Fraud such as misrepresenting the terms of the contract should be prohibited, but otherwise parties should be free to contract at whatever terms are justified by the risks and rewards involved.
Contingency cases have been around for ages. And the practice has grown by leaps and bounds. I recall the Jim Sokolov toll free numbers posted on tv commercials. Local TV. His practice evolved nationwide to the point of advertising for class action lawsuits join in ads against drug manufacturing companies. So someone figured out how to put the process of contingency litigation on a large scale, streamlined it , and turned it into litigation investment fund. They had it comimg. American capitalism turning onto itself. They are eating themselves alive.
@@ericomfg well, take into perspective health care. One of the key drivers ( other than greed ) to health care escalating costs in the US is the legal burden of malpractice liabilities. Don’t get me wrong. Corporate malfeasance and medical malpractice are deserving of lawsuits. So no limitation of damages sought , it is very fair. Yet, in the case of malpractice , attorneys sue not the hospital, but the practitioner. The former , is tall order to win a lawsuit , and later , he is insured. Ao there is a pernicious side to all of this free for all lawsuits. It is not about Justice for all. It is about money for a few.
@@serafinacosta7118 who isn't greedy? What's your solution for bad doctors, or at least bad medical malpractice situations...? The majority of the cost comes from govt regulation and purposefully limiting competition, like not letting non English speaking doctors practice. It's really supply and demand, simply, right? Surely having your choice of doctor/care/whatever is ideal, instead of limiting that through centralized planners...?
@@ericomfg Your doctors use certain hospitals/labs, so what competition? The problem is guild pricing that lacks transparency and any real ties to real costs based on labor and materials. Malpractice is almost a rounding error.
I'm trying to see both sides, but in the end, I think its very fair. See he could have diversified his distributors and customers and not depend on one. He could have done more market research and sell his peppers to other clients. This is bad management and they provide a law service that he neglected so I think even half is more then fair..
in this video they are saying the opposite.. it should go to the lowest bidder so that the victim get more of their lawsuit settlement. And that the companies providing these funding services are bound by specific fair play rules to protect all parties involved. And when there is an issue, there is a regulatory body that can be gone to for assistance and clarification, such as the 9/11 funds victim to get clarity on what the interest rates are in that contract. And it would put those companies on notice that there is someone watching and to play fair and be honest. and to make their contract understandable, etc.
Great piece. Good work by the funding group. I think it’s funny though how they called all the lawyers into the office that day and told them to go sit at their desks. They know good and well that they all work from home!
This has HEAVY vibes of the McDonalds story where they said you could just spill coffee on your lap and make millions from "frivolous lawsuits". But they completely missed the point of that story to begin with. Here the story should be how people who CANNON AFFORD TO SUE, are able to hold big big businesses accountable.
I’m currently trying to sue Amazon. I have a letter from the EEOC that gives me authorization to file this complaint with the courts. Only one problem!! I cannot find a lawyer!!! I’m in Phoenix!! They want to much money for a consultation!! I was wrongfully fired by Amazon. And I have all the proof. But it seems like nobody cares to help.
How about when you get fired from a job, you look for a new job like a normal person? This country is full of scam artists looking for a free paycheck.
I don't see anything wrong with investing in lawsuits. The American people actually need more of this because it levels the playing field for plaintiffs.
Here in Singapore, Litigation Funding is Frown Upon by Government … if anyone Influential tried to Assist, They will be Targeted …that’s how we maintain Our Reputation 😊
Don’t tell me it’s incumbent upon the client to read the contract when a legal expert can’t. Same with insurance policies. Even people who do read their policies don’t get the loopholes built into them. It’s a scam.
No one forced the customers to enter these deals. They couldn’t understand the documents yet signed them anyway. They could have instead hired a lawyer on contingency (no fee unless they win) or filed pro se if they were willing to do the work. The funder loses 100% of their money if the case fails. At what point would regulation be protecting people from themselves?
@@davebarbetta If a company wants to ensure a contract is ironclad and upheld in court then they should make sure the other party has legal representation and doesn’t sign contract under mental duress/under the influence. Lawyers can’t reasonably expect non-lawyers to understand what they’re signing
@@duancoviero9759 and why is that? I am a businessman and like to get a good return on my money. In the video I believe they mentioned Hedge Funds are now getting involved which indicates it’s a profitable investment. I would rather invest in a company like this then a company that makes cigarettes because to me investing in a company that kills people is not good karma. These guys help those who are getting f$&ked by big companies because people can’t afford to pay the legal fees to fight an appeal. The man in the video wound up with 4 million dollars versus not getting a penny due to the firm that put up the money to fight the Corp machine. I think it’s a incredible business model. What about it do you not like? It’s 100% ethical and without the funding from this company many people who would not have gotten a penny now recover a few million.
for too long big money has totally influenced the law. Companies can fund for years and years against joe blow. Oh and their lawyers are tax deductiable!!
@@zinjanthropus322 The point stands. Money rules this planet and all that happens on it. After all, it's money that's to blame for the apocalypse our species is sleep-walking into right now.
I've been exposed to AFFF (Firefighting foam) as a Firefighter. I've been told I had to join one of the class actions. I'd rather die coughing than give the firms my money
There is a Sriracha shortage right now and the company is blaming it on the weather. How ironic. "News of the shortage first broke last summer when Huy Fong Foods announced that less-than-favorable weather conditions had resulted in a dwindling chili pepper supply. A year later, times still appear to be tough for the supplier."
I find it very unfortunate that 60 Minutes ignored the *huge, gigantic elephant in the room.* I am referring to the source of our overly-litigious society and that is a little matter known as the “American Rule” of attorneys fees. You see, the US is unique in that just about everywhere else in the world *except* the US, by default, the party that loses a case has to pay for the winning party’s attorneys fees. Not only does it work this way in most countries but also in other countries that share the same legal system and legal tradition as the US known as the Common Law legal system (e.g., the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.). In the US however, by default each party is responsible for their own side’s legal fees. This encourages frivolous lawsuits because the suing party knows that even if they lose, they are only out their own legal fees. As a result, if a plaintiff knows a case isn’t strong they won’t even start the lawsuit in the first place. This situation also allows plaintiffs with deep pockets to unfairly intimidate possible defendants just by threatening a lawsuit even if their case is weak - as they know the cost of defending a lawsuit could be very high for the other side. Therefore, the number one change we could make to improve our legal system is to enact a loser pays rule like everywhere else in the world.
Funny. Big. Skit. Like. Failed to produce. A passive. Observer. Victim. Didn’t have any. Like. Green man have to take. So. Add. That to. In belivable. And. People. Hurt bad. Could I been killed. Maybe one. Close. Also. Me. Didn’t sleep. After. That. Exp. Like. No. Sleep. At all. Like something. Broke. Rest of this. Is just cruel. Fizzles. To nothing.
Stop! We have a problem 25 seconds into this report…Why is seeking justice, using the only available method to seek recompense for crimes or wrongful injury, contingent on a person’s income? If the Judicial system is to deliver justice, it must be available/affordable to those who are most vulnerable. The community of legal advocates and judges ought to be able to make a decent living, fund a dignified retirement and that’s ALL. No more millionaires in the “justice” system and no more corporate investment or interference.
@guymontag5084 I’m not convinced we need highly intelligent people, I think we need highly ETHICAL ones. In a culture, like ours, where cunning vs caring is rewarded monetarily no one stands a chance.
So...we dont call them ambulance chasers anymore? Sorry...didnt get that memo.....dont see what regulation is needed....the "regulation" is the justice system.....someone's choice to bankroll a suit is a lottery for everyone involved and that's about the long and short of it
Sriracha breeches contract and knows it. Rightfully loses litigation. Appeals. Loses again and pays anyway. All of the above are a drop in the bucket to a company like Huy Fong Foods. So they're greedy tactics attracted and even greedier group of investors. Now I hate that sauce even more.
Its not predatory, yes its 100% charge for success. However this company gave this farmer $4 million and said "If you win we get $8 million if you we lose we get nothing" that's a fair deal.
Lol...my grandfather immigrated from Mexico and became very successful in ranching. I went with him to buy a car which he bought in full. A young American couple financed the same car but was going to cost them a lot more. They looked over to my grandfather sitting at the next desk . My grandfather in chopped English Welcome 2 US de A
I don't think it was predatory when they charged him 100%, remember had he lost he would have walked scot free and the finance company would have been $4m out of pocket. They took the risk they got the reward. Had it not been for the finance company this lad would have got $0 instead of the $20m he recieved
We are hearing about the effectiveness of a new generation of AI that could replace the research drudgery imposed on litigation preparation, and that the Centaur model of human interface with the system is an optimisation tool for rapidly reducing the appropriate summaries of evidence to a "least time, maximum return" judgement balance. Yes please.
If you expect me to believe that those traders with massive amounts of capital at hand aren't the ones funding these litigation betting opportunities you will spur an argument.
60 Minutes tries to paint the funders as altruistic. But, while they certainly are breaking no laws or ethical guidelines, they 100% drive up the cost of litigation. In the case of insurance backed litigation, this ultimately increases loss cost and results in premium increases to the customer. Insurance is certainly not the good guy here, but they are not the only bad guy.
This is so true. At the end of the day we as consumer are paying for all these things. Some people benefit but many people do take undue advantage such as many auto crashes.
The more money you have the more justice you get 🇺🇸
So the legal system is rigged against the small guys to a point they need an expensive life line. And yet the life line is a bigger story and the problem itself.
This valid take makes me question 60 minute’s take
The lifeline isnt really a problem in fact many (in this video) argue its a solution to help the little guy. All some are saying is it may need regulation.
It seems 60 min explored all angles... I didnt see 60 min had a "take" Did you only watch half the video?
😅hey... Beats joining 322 and years of work to find out !
@@nickg2561no, the lifeline isn't the problem. The problem happens when the lawsuit award doesn't go to the victims for the losses AND the damages from intrusive personal information gathering and slander.
big companies are the ones demanding regulation, that speaks volumes to me. consider if you had a case against walmart, monsanto or amazon what would you do?
Yeah then ligitations finance actually helps more small people than big companies because mostly betting against big companies you can only win
I think its a great idea. This is a
great idea. It allows the small guy to go up aginst the Big Shark companies. Imagine you are a small farmer, and a big oil company has a spill that destroys your land,you can have a way to get justice and fair compensation without settling.Especially if you cant initailly afford the lawyers fees.
Good point
Justice is blind, unless you're rich
That's the beauty of this industry, even if you don't have money you can convince the rich your case can be profitable to invest in.
The farmer who grew jalapeno peppers only had one customer. That is not good business. What if that client went out of business? Who would the farmer have sued then? Since he won his case, I must assume that he had a valid argument but he also put himself in that position.
agreed that was bad business on his part unless his contract stipulated all his product goes to them in which case he had every right to sue the sh it out of them and they should of held up their end of the agreement
@@nickg2561 I don't begrudge him suing this client and nor am I questioning the fact that he had a legitimate grievance against them but he was in a very vulnerable position because, as I said, there are many ways that this could have gone sideways. His one client could have been bought by another company which would have voided that contract and maybe the new owners wouldn't want to buy from him because they already had their own suppliers. He's very lucky that he had that option.
@@georgfriedrichhandel4390the sriracha guys insisted on exclusivity so their competitors couldn’t get their peppers… not the farmer’s fault. Somebody would have been in it or Sriracha doesn’t exist.
@@codacreator6162 I'm sure you're right but that's still a major business risk.
@guymontag5084 Yes and that's why many chicken farmers are so deep in debt. These farmers have to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars because these companies require said upgrades and if any farmer doesn't make the required upgrades, companies won't buy chickens from those farmers. It's bad business for the latter.
" Rules and oversight to the rescue!". That means tie the hands of anyone who would seek justice.
10:40 - "But after I signed..."
Of course you didn't "understand" the terms until AFTER you signed something. Don't sign something you don't understand.
We should encourage companies to enter this space. As the number of the players in the market increase, the more options litigants will have. Fraud such as misrepresenting the terms of the contract should be prohibited, but otherwise parties should be free to contract at whatever terms are justified by the risks and rewards involved.
I am doing this now.
@@imperatorbaydonious3666have you done it.I think usa is crowded
Contingency cases have been around for ages. And the practice has grown by leaps and bounds.
I recall the Jim Sokolov toll free numbers posted on tv commercials. Local TV. His practice evolved nationwide to the point of advertising for class action lawsuits join in ads against drug manufacturing companies.
So someone figured out how to put the process of contingency litigation on a large scale, streamlined it , and turned it into litigation investment fund. They had it comimg.
American capitalism turning onto itself. They are eating themselves alive.
exactly
Why is this bad, fundamentally? Isn't it just going to result in competition and better service, eventually..?
Capitalism just means private ownership
@@ericomfg well, take into perspective health care. One of the key drivers ( other than greed ) to health care escalating costs in the US is the legal burden of malpractice liabilities.
Don’t get me wrong. Corporate malfeasance and medical malpractice are deserving of lawsuits. So no limitation of damages sought , it is very fair.
Yet, in the case of malpractice , attorneys sue not the hospital, but the practitioner. The former , is tall order to win a lawsuit , and later , he is insured.
Ao there is a pernicious side to all of this free for all lawsuits. It is not about Justice for all. It is about money for a few.
@@serafinacosta7118 who isn't greedy?
What's your solution for bad doctors, or at least bad medical malpractice situations...?
The majority of the cost comes from govt regulation and purposefully limiting competition, like not letting non English speaking doctors practice. It's really supply and demand, simply, right?
Surely having your choice of doctor/care/whatever is ideal, instead of limiting that through centralized planners...?
@@ericomfg Your doctors use certain hospitals/labs, so what competition? The problem is guild pricing that lacks transparency and any real ties to real costs based on labor and materials. Malpractice is almost a rounding error.
Well researched and presented. Thanks.
When you have less money, you have less options, who knew?
Most lawyers work on contingency terms already.. When you have less money, you have less options, who knew?.
This isnt about contingency cases. This is about outside financing of lawsuits.
suing the people who fund people to sue other people. oh lord
I'm trying to see both sides, but in the end, I think its very fair. See he could have diversified his distributors and customers and not depend on one. He could have done more market research and sell his peppers to other clients. This is bad management and they provide a law service that he neglected so I think even half is more then fair..
Something isn't right here. The justice system shouldn't go to the highest bidder..
in this video they are saying the opposite.. it should go to the lowest bidder so that the victim get more of their lawsuit settlement. And that the companies providing these funding services are bound by specific fair play rules to protect all parties involved. And when there is an issue, there is a regulatory body that can be gone to for assistance and clarification, such as the 9/11 funds victim to get clarity on what the interest rates are in that contract. And it would put those companies on notice that there is someone watching and to play fair and be honest. and to make their contract understandable, etc.
Money is power
Great piece. Good work by the funding group. I think it’s funny though how they called all the lawyers into the office that day and told them to go sit at their desks. They know good and well that they all work from home!
This has HEAVY vibes of the McDonalds story where they said you could just spill coffee on your lap and make millions from "frivolous lawsuits".
But they completely missed the point of that story to begin with.
Here the story should be how people who CANNON AFFORD TO SUE, are able to hold big big businesses accountable.
I did this for almost 15 years. Sometimes I miss it
Personal accident attorneys have been operating like this (contingency basis) for at least 30 years + (nothing new here).
I’m currently trying to sue Amazon. I have a letter from the EEOC that gives me authorization to file this complaint with the courts. Only one problem!! I cannot find a lawyer!!! I’m in Phoenix!! They want to much money for a consultation!! I was wrongfully fired by Amazon. And I have all the proof. But it seems like nobody cares to help.
How about when you get fired from a job, you look for a new job like a normal person? This country is full of scam artists looking for a free paycheck.
I don't see anything wrong with investing in lawsuits. The American people actually need
more of this because it levels the playing field for plaintiffs.
Here in Singapore, Litigation Funding is Frown Upon by Government … if anyone Influential tried to Assist, They will be Targeted …that’s how we maintain Our Reputation 😊
“We don’t get paid until you do” feels like it’s been on every tv commercial for decades and on billboards.
Yes, personal injury does this often
@@justinpfortier so just really expensive ambulance chasing... got it.
What those ads refer to, is working on contingency. Which is a different albeit potentially related concept.
@@jacobolson2306 kinda feels like this is the same just on a massive scale. Ambulance chasers turned boardroom chasers.
Thank you so much.
This is going to become a movie.
Don’t tell me it’s incumbent upon the client to read the contract when a legal expert can’t. Same with insurance policies. Even people who do read their policies don’t get the loopholes built into them. It’s a scam.
Very interesting industry and great reporting.
Am blown away. 💯
The more risk we take, the more returns we will get.
Taking risks is probably better than living in a comfort zone.
Thank you for sharing!
You are correct 🎉
Most lawyers work on contingency terms already.
No, contingency required!
i don't see one single thing wrong with this industry, and i see no need for regulation.
Wow!! You need to open your eyes. Use your brain and think like a lawyer and then you should see what could go wrong.
No one forced the customers to enter these deals. They couldn’t understand the documents yet signed them anyway. They could have instead hired a lawyer on contingency (no fee unless they win) or filed pro se if they were willing to do the work. The funder loses 100% of their money if the case fails. At what point would regulation be protecting people from themselves?
@@davebarbetta If a company wants to ensure a contract is ironclad and upheld in court then they should make sure the other party has legal representation and doesn’t sign contract under mental duress/under the influence. Lawyers can’t reasonably expect non-lawyers to understand what they’re signing
Very interesting! Thanks for covering this little known industry 60 Mins.
This is not new but probably on the rise! Thanks for the coverage.
I wish I could invest in this litigation company. If they were public I would buy their stock.
Eewwww, that's the last thing we need.
@@duancoviero9759 and why is that? I am a businessman and like to get a good return on my money. In the video I believe they mentioned Hedge Funds are now getting involved which indicates it’s a profitable investment. I would rather invest in a company like this then a company that makes cigarettes because to me investing in a company that kills people is not good karma. These guys help those who are getting f$&ked by big companies because people can’t afford to pay the legal fees to fight an appeal. The man in the video wound up with 4 million dollars versus not getting a penny due to the firm that put up the money to fight the Corp machine. I think it’s a incredible business model. What about it do you not like? It’s 100% ethical and without the funding from this company many people who would not have gotten a penny now recover a few million.
for too long big money has totally influenced the law. Companies can fund for years and years against joe blow. Oh and their lawyers are tax deductiable!!
I need one of these against the Norwegian government...
what happened
Justice is blind, unless you're rich. Well researched and presented. Thanks..
Or you convince someone with the money your case is just.
@@zinjanthropus322 The point stands. Money rules this planet and all that happens on it. After all, it's money that's to blame for the apocalypse our species is sleep-walking into right now.
@@Synathidy What apocalypse? Living better than any humans in history?
Ad for the fund?
I've been exposed to AFFF (Firefighting foam) as a Firefighter. I've been told I had to join one of the class actions. I'd rather die coughing than give the firms my money
Very interesting industry and great reporting.. suing the people who fund people to sue other people. oh lord.
Litigation funders are good for Clients with limited means or smaller firms going up against large companies-
Fees and residuals? Not reparations or restitution.
No oversight that doesn’t sound good .
Sounds like a great investment opportunity. Stock market sucks right now and frankily, i am glad these firms exist. Go Burford!
Wow, this industry's very interesting.
There is a Sriracha shortage right now and the company is blaming it on the weather. How ironic.
"News of the shortage first broke last summer when Huy Fong Foods announced that less-than-favorable weather conditions had resulted in a dwindling chili pepper supply. A year later, times still appear to be tough for the supplier."
well.. Their corporation definitely works well with labor disputes
The legal system is completely fractured in America.
This is NOT a new thing. It's just now the media has discovered it. These are not loans, they are bets on your case.
So sad that this "solution" exists.
Shame on the legal system.
Shame on all the liars, err lawyers.
And all judges are lawyers first.
Literally found about this practice by way of the tv show The Good Fight..
I’ve been reassured that the market will self correct
Right, Associated attorneys, DAs, and Judges of America?
I don’t think anything is wrong with this. A lot of people can’t afford lawyers.
I find it very unfortunate that 60 Minutes ignored the *huge, gigantic elephant in the room.* I am referring to the source of our overly-litigious society and that is a little matter known as the “American Rule” of attorneys fees. You see, the US is unique in that just about everywhere else in the world *except* the US, by default, the party that loses a case has to pay for the winning party’s attorneys fees. Not only does it work this way in most countries but also in other countries that share the same legal system and legal tradition as the US known as the Common Law legal system (e.g., the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.). In the US however, by default each party is responsible for their own side’s legal fees. This encourages frivolous lawsuits because the suing party knows that even if they lose, they are only out their own legal fees. As a result, if a plaintiff knows a case isn’t strong they won’t even start the lawsuit in the first place. This situation also allows plaintiffs with deep pockets to unfairly intimidate possible defendants just by threatening a lawsuit even if their case is weak - as they know the cost of defending a lawsuit could be very high for the other side. Therefore, the number one change we could make to improve our legal system is to enact a loser pays rule like everywhere else in the world.
Wow great news 60 I hope
This is America! I’m sure in other countries this is standard practice.
Funny. Big. Skit. Like. Failed to produce. A passive. Observer. Victim. Didn’t have any. Like. Green man have to take. So. Add. That to. In belivable. And. People. Hurt bad. Could I been killed. Maybe one. Close. Also. Me. Didn’t sleep. After. That. Exp. Like. No. Sleep. At all. Like something. Broke. Rest of this. Is just cruel. Fizzles. To nothing.
very interesting part of finance
I don't understand why people don't enter into litigation in pro se
Because they will be destroyed.
What a great idea.
Got to love greed at its finest, it’s a shame how we can make money in this country at times 🤔
Should the funders work for free?
No regulations at all at big companies
Regulate it so there is more red tape and more legal fees, sounds like a great idea!
Risk involved for the funders, clients agree, attorneys agree. I see no wrong.
Stop! We have a problem 25 seconds into this report…Why is seeking justice, using the only available method to seek recompense for crimes or wrongful injury, contingent on a person’s income?
If the Judicial system is to deliver justice, it must be available/affordable to those who are most vulnerable. The community of legal advocates and judges ought to be able to make a decent living, fund a dignified retirement and that’s ALL. No more millionaires in the “justice” system and no more corporate investment or interference.
@guymontag5084 I’m not convinced we need highly intelligent people, I think we need highly ETHICAL ones. In a culture, like ours, where cunning vs caring is rewarded monetarily no one stands a chance.
So...we dont call them ambulance chasers anymore? Sorry...didnt get that memo.....dont see what regulation is needed....the "regulation" is the justice system.....someone's choice to bankroll a suit is a lottery for everyone involved and that's about the long and short of it
Regulation could help with the contracts to make them comprehensible. When a lawyer can't understand them, that's a problem.
Sriracha breeches contract and knows it. Rightfully loses litigation. Appeals. Loses again and pays anyway.
All of the above are a drop in the bucket to a company like Huy Fong Foods.
So they're greedy tactics attracted and even greedier group of investors.
Now I hate that sauce even more.
Question: If your win rate is 90%, how is that high risk?
American lawsuits systems are sick
Why is he shaking his head no while he speaks?
I think it’s brilliant. What’s the problem
Its not predatory, yes its 100% charge for success. However this company gave this farmer $4 million and said "If you win we get $8 million if you we lose we get nothing" that's a fair deal.
They showed my Indian brother too many times. We got yall! We know that there are lots of diversity in litigation world 🤪
I wonder if what Sriracha did to Craig played a part in the Sriracha Shortage...
everything in america is about money.
Lol...my grandfather immigrated from Mexico and became very successful in ranching. I went with him to buy a car which he bought in full. A young American couple financed the same car but was going to cost them a lot more. They looked over to my grandfather sitting at the next desk .
My grandfather in chopped English
Welcome 2 US de A
The 1st amendment would make rules and oversight nearly impossible
I don't think it was predatory when they charged him 100%, remember had he lost he would have walked scot free and the finance company would have been $4m out of pocket. They took the risk they got the reward. Had it not been for the finance company this lad would have got $0 instead of the $20m he recieved
We are hearing about the effectiveness of a new generation of AI that could replace the research drudgery imposed on litigation preparation, and that the Centaur model of human interface with the system is an optimisation tool for rapidly reducing the appropriate summaries of evidence to a "least time, maximum return" judgement balance. Yes please.
If you don’t understand a contract, don’t sign it.
Seen this coming 20 years ago
Ms. Stahl is a damned good looking older broad. She's had a very impressive career also.
There are few two-word combinations I've heard that are more American than "litigation funding."
The rich will stop at nothing to stop investor funding
It’s funny how the hot sauce company now has stopped production due to shortage of the peppers lol
Now just a podcaster, honorary doctor, and experimenter in a very isolated bungalow. A.I. took all our jobs! I work on time dilation.
Humankinds downfall: Greed.
Regulation of the litigation funding is a must to avoid abuse and exploitation of clients.
No one is really overseeing the mostly wealthy corporations being sued but you want to oversee the middle class and poor who sue them. Why?
It is predatory and the rate of return is usurious.
Double or nothing is a pretty old standard!
why
Police Department lawsuits?
If you expect me to believe that those traders with massive amounts of capital at hand aren't the ones funding these litigation betting opportunities you will spur an argument.
It’s sounds like these are loan sharks funders
Sure let’s trust our government to regulate every aspect of our life’s because they have our best interest.
Doc ... what does Sidney Powell mean by this presentation?
How do you contact them?
Who's the best attorney of them all? Public opinion.
no absolutely not. the general public can be heavily biased in all kinds if things. they generally miss the mark on alot of laws
Great idea for the little man against big business, until the US national sport of greedy lawyers comes into play.
This is why money problems are people anxiety LIFE IS TERRIBLE IN AMERICA WHEN YOURR BROKE
A $1 penalty? Seriously?
60 Minutes tries to paint the funders as altruistic. But, while they certainly are breaking no laws or ethical guidelines, they 100% drive up the cost of litigation. In the case of insurance backed litigation, this ultimately increases loss cost and results in premium increases to the customer. Insurance is certainly not the good guy here, but they are not the only bad guy.
"Don't hate the player, hate the game."
This is so true. At the end of the day we as consumer are paying for all these things. Some people benefit but many people do take undue advantage such as many auto crashes.