Trending Now
  • Fenchurch Legal Launches Secured Litigation Funding Strategy for Fixed-Income Investors
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Richard Culberson, CEO, VoiceNation and Moneypenny North America

By John Freund |

Member Bio: Richard Culberson is the CEO of VoiceNation and Moneypenny North America, global leaders in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. The business  has an award-winning culture, with over 1,000 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

Company Name and Description:  Moneypenny and VoiceNation are America’s leading virtual receptionist & phone answering providers offering 24/7 communication solutions. 

Collectively, Moneypenny and VoiceNation employ over 1,000 people handling millions of calls, chats and bespoke tech solutions for thousands of businesses of all shapes and sizes from sole traders right up to multinational corporations.

Company Websitewww.voicenation.com & www.moneypenny.com

Year Founded:  2000

Headquarters:  Atlanta (USA) and Wrexham (UK)

Area of Focus: Richard Culberson, CEO of North America, focuses on strategic growth, innovation, and market expansion in the region combining the very best people and tech to provide gold standard customer contact solutions. 

Member Quote: “Litigation funding is transforming how businesses approach legal disputes. Moneypenny and VoiceNation provide bespoke call answering and customer service solutions, ensuring prompt and professional responses that improve client engagement and lead generation. We also provide 24/7 availability, allowing firms to capture opportunities and deliver excellent customer service even outside regular business hours.”

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.

Litigation Funding Isn’t an ‘Anti-Woke’ Weapon, Says Consumer Advocacy Group

By John Freund |

A new opinion piece pushes back against recent cultural and political rhetoric characterizing third-party litigation funding as a partisan instrument, arguing instead that it remains a neutral financial tool in the legal system.

An article in the Consumer Choice Center emphasizes that while some political actors and commentators have portrayed litigation funding as a means to challenge so-called “woke” corporations, such framing misconstrues the role and function of funders. According to the piece, litigation funding serves a straightforward purpose: to provide capital to litigants—be they individuals or entities—who lack the resources to pursue claims. The authors argue that this mechanism is neither inherently ideological nor driven by political outcomes.

The article calls for clearer regulatory standards and heightened transparency to avoid potential abuses and maintain public trust. It warns against allowing litigation finance to be co-opted by political narratives, which could derail substantive policy debates around disclosure, ethical boundaries, and market oversight.

In a landscape increasingly shaped by culture wars, this intervention underscores a foundational point: litigation finance is not a proxy battlefield for partisan interests, but a tool with the potential to improve access to justice—provided it is governed with clarity and care.

WSJ Editorial Calls for Ending Tax Breaks for Foreign Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

A recent opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal advocates for closing tax loopholes that allow foreign investment funds to avoid U.S. taxes on profits earned from financing lawsuits against American companies. The editorial argues that the current tax code inadvertently incentivizes predatory litigation funding practices by exempting foreign investors from taxation on lawsuit proceeds, thereby disadvantaging domestic businesses.

The article contends that this exemption creates an uneven playing field, enabling foreign entities to profit from U.S. legal actions without contributing to the tax base. It suggests that such practices not only strain the judicial system but also impose additional burdens on American companies, which must defend against potentially frivolous or opportunistic lawsuits financed by these untaxed foreign investments.

The editorial calls on Congress to reevaluate and amend the tax code to eliminate these exemptions. By doing so, it aims to deter exploitative litigation funding and ensure that all investors, regardless of nationality, are subject to the same tax obligations when profiting from the U.S. legal system.

The piece emphasizes that such reforms would promote fairness and protect domestic businesses from undue legal and financial pressures.