If justice requires rounding up investors, then the society of laws is already on it's deathbed.
That doesn't follow. Participating in the legal system has always had a price, and sometimes people cannot afford to get the justice they deserve. That is a fact of life, and has always been the case. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because it also prevents a lot of frivolous lawsuits for trivial sums (there is, of course, a venue for low value lawsuits--small claims court--but there, since you cannot hire a lawyer to represent you, you must pay with your time). If anyone could proceed with a major lawsuit for free, the system would be choked with people hoping to squeeze a dime out of anybody with money.
It also does a great injustice to anyone who probably should prevail but is not certain to by creating a legal services bubble.
Such people aren't affected by this. So they're really no worse off than they were before.
It also has the unfortunate effect of encouraging 'sure thing' lawsuits that should NOT prevail. For example, the RIAA threaten and settle model. They are sure to get many settlements (since they demand less than the cost to even begin fighting the suits).
RIAA doesn't need this. They have deep pockets. And if they're really making less money through settlement than it would cost to fight the lawsuit, then they're not likely to get any investors now, are they? The only reason to invest in a lawsuit would be with the hope of making a profit through either a large settlement or judgment.
But the people who COULD use this are those who want to, say, countersue RIAA for harassment, or filing false claims. Normally, RIAA could just weather the storm and outlast their opponents, who have limited resources. But faced with the proposition of a lawsuit that could potentially drag on and cost them serious money, they're more likely to simply settle and be done with it, especially if the merits of the case weigh strongly against them.