Activity Stream

Fundfi merchant Funding We are b/c and go out as long as 10 months 1-5, 2nd to 4th is our sweet spot brian@fundfimerchantfunding.com Happy to chat further

One of my guys now has access to a national bank that can do a loan combining primary and investment/commercial property. LTV, CLTV 70% 5 years 18% - 25% interest https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B0-a7hSMNa-KDTMDk2R5YPYpOgRpK-4U/view?usp=sharing

WBL is a Residential Licensed Mortgage Lender is 45 States? Yes, still lending against primary residences

We fund B-D specializing in B-C. 2-6th positions. Feel free to reach out.

Thanks. Got it

I do A-D paper on case by case basis but we prefer B&C paper if we like the file. Feel free to reach out to me to discuss this and get you signed up. Scott Platto scott@tmrnow.com tmrnow.com Office 212-220-9872 Cell 908-340-9454

OnTap Capital is an A-C funder, 2-5th position Feel free to give me a call diana@ontapcap.com 929-566-7317

Best long term strategy is to own and control your lead funnel.

I can definitely vouch for Merchant Marketplace. They are awesome, always available to speak and goes above and beyond to get the deal done!!!

I will be happy to get you guys onboard. Abe-Meged funding abe@megedfunding.com

Meged Funding are best in this sector! please reach out! abe@megedfunding.com

Top ISOs of the industry saying that Meged defiantly are from the most reputable in this industry. Especially at the BC sector. abe@megedfudning.com

Hey, I know this post is from a long time ago, but it’s still a good time to join our ISO network and get the best funding options for BC papers. Please reach out by phone or email using the contact information below. Best, Abe Meged Funding

sending email

Record for the longest thread. However, I would just like to throw some fuel on the fire. The Kapitus summary judgement read as follows: Further, with respect to defendant merchants alleged defaults, the failure to forward he receivables to plaintiff, plaintiffs ledgers submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment contain notations that the funds were not received due to "insufficient funds" rather than an affirmative act by the defendant to breach the agreement. That means that bouncing payments is not in and of itself a true "breach of contract." That might not have anything to do with the colloquial "default" for clawbacks, but it is an interesting discussion point.

KollectionsGuy, I read it. Yeah, Kapitus literally said "If you do XYZ, then you cannot do reconciliation anymore".... which therefore means it automatically turns into a loan. How about that? It appears that anyone who funded with Kapitus can just go ahead and "opt out" of the payback, right?

FundKite is the leader on the ACH side, however any CC split or CC lockbox deal is doing the exact same thing.

This action arises out of the alleged breach of contract and guaranty by defendants. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment and seeks the amount allegedly due and owing pursuant to the contract and guaranty. Defendants oppose the motion and separately move for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and defendants' motion is denied. Kapitus Default Attempt: In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff relies on the agreements as well as the affidavit of David Wolfson, the Vice President of Risk Management and Asset Recovery of plaintiff. Mr. Wolfson' s affidavit provides an itemization of the alleged amount due and a recitation of defendants' alleged defaults. Court Findings: The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that the underlying agreement was not a usurious loan but rather a sale and purchase of receivables as a matter of law. Plaintiff contends that this language, quoted from the agreement "It is the Merchants responsibility to provide bank statements for any and all bank accounts held by the Merchant to reconcile the daily payments made against the Specified Percentage permitting FUNDER to debit or credit the difference to the merchant so that payment equals the Specified Percentage. Failure to provide all of their bank statements in a timely manner or missing a month shall forfeit all rights to future reconciliations." It is the reconciliation provision. The Court is unpersuaded. The Court notes, that although there is a sentence in the agreement regarding a forfeiture of the merchants right to a reconciliation, there is nothing in the agreement that addresses this right. Specifically, the contract is devoid of a provision specifying how to obtain a reconciliation and under what conditions one may be obtained. Thus, this factor weighs against a finding that this agreement is one for the purchase of receivables rather than a loan. As to the second factor that the Court must weigh, whether there is a finite term, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of an agreement for the sale and purchase of receivables, however, it is insufficient on its own and is outweighed by the other two factors. The third factor, regarding recourse if the merchant files for bankruptcy, heavily weighs in favor of finding the subject agreement are loans. The agreements provide that if defendant merchant files for bankruptcy plaintiff is immediately entitled to enforce the personal guarantees and enter a judgment as against the merchant. This weighs against the finding that this agreement is a loan rather than an agreement for future receivables, as the plaintiffs payment was not contingent of the merchant's future receivables, thus plaintiff was not assuming a risk of non-payment. Further, with respect to defendant merchants alleged defaults, the failure to forward he receivables to plaintiff, plaintiffs ledgers submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment contain notations that the funds were not received due to "insufficient funds" rather than an affirmative act by the defendant to breach the agreement. Moreover, Mr. Wolfson' s affidavit provides that the agreements directed that the plaintiff was to collect 5% of defendant's daily receivables, however the affidavit is silent as to why there is a specific daily amount and how that amount was calculated. The payment of a fixed daily amount, rather than a fluctuating amount based on the percentage of receivables, weighs heavily against the underlying agreement being a legitimate agreement for sale and purchase of receivables. Merchant Favorable Outcome After Breaching Kapitus Contract for "Insufficient Funds": In support of the motion for summary judgment defendants contend that the underlying agreement is not a legitimate sale and purchase of receivables, rather it is a usurious loan, thus the underlying contract is void as a matter of law. While this Court does find that the underlying agreement is not a legitimate agreement for the sale and purchase of receivables, and is a loan as a matter of law, defendants have failed to submit admissible evidence to establish that the loans are usurious. Accordingly, it is hereby ADJUDGED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ADJUDGED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. = 99% of outstanding MCAs are at risk of being VOIDED VOIDED VOIDED like the check they ask for when funding. 99% of MCA funders have criminal liability until they completely conform to real-time reconciliation. In New York, the maximum rate of interest on a loan is 16% per annum. If a lender charges more than that, it may be liable for civil usury. Interest that is higher than 25% constitutes criminal usury.

I would fund it.

Stopping payment is a breach of contract not a default. You cannot default on an MCA because the term by theory is infinite or it would be a loan. Hence, estimated payments/term on contracts. Real-time reconciliation would keep payments to % agreed in contract according to incoming revenue. Cannot default with true real-time reconciliation. Any set term makes it a loan.

Going to be a huge change in MCA as funders will have the cost of new technology to conform. Then broker commission going to be like a reverse with real-time reconciliation and so on. It's a good thing cleans it up, breeds patience and a better overall playing field.

how does it eliminate all defaults? Merchants can still R08/ Block payments or switch accounts....

Funders going to have to wait longer for returns yet it protects all sides fairly.

Reminder is not going to be enough I would assume this will lead to it becoming protocol to do it like FundKite. Eliminates all defaults and sets a good precedent and industry standards shout out to FundKite!

Seems FundKite is the only funder who truly practices real-time MCA payment reconciliation. https://fundkite.com/ Any others anyone can name?

I have a couple of options for them. Feel free to reach out.

John, you broke it down insanely good from the funder's perspective, kudos. Alex Peterson ISO Relationship Manager, THORO CORP E: alex@thorocorp.com C: 305-502-9414

Brianna be aware he's an iso. You can easily find funders.