[swiftcloser]

.....

[MCNetwork]

Good marketing tool that's for sure!

[abfunders]

RDM Capital also just dropped COJs for less than $100k

[J.Celifarco]

If companies start marketing to merchants in the way it is going to make getting a coj signened when you need one much much more difficult.. Smart move by knight

[abfunders]

RDM sent that email to me, as a broker.
John, in such a case you're right when it comes to in-house sales forces. RDM is 100% broker-centered.
For brokers to know the options, when the merchant is requesting it specifically.....

[HDF]

It's tricky though - to John's point. It brings up a negative and inspires research.

[HDF]

If I was an ACH loan lender/funder, I'd be licking my chops to buy out misplaced MCAs of queasy merchants in the next 6 months and take first position whenever possible. They are the ones who should be aggressive on marketing spend and spin.

[harvey]

this post was posted on zachs twitter already

[MadisonParker]

RDM Capital also just dropped COJs for less than $100k

RDM is smart. They're offers are very strong and they wth no COJ's it's a no brainer. I'm predicting everyone will switch over to no COJ's by Jan 31st

[Franklin]

RDM is smart. They're offers are very strong and they wth no COJ's it's a no brainer. I'm predicting everyone will switch over to no COJ's by Jan 31st

I guess the math question is, how much revenue do funders make when they're forced to enforce COJs, vs how much would they make if they're the only lender not requiring COJs?







www.UCCRadar.com

[Sean Cash]

I'm predicting everyone will switch over to no COJ's by Jan 31st

I'm not so sure about that.

1. Some investors backing funders require that the deals have COJs. Without them, the funders may be forced out of business. (not saying this is bad)

2. If everyone gets rid of COJs except one major company and that major company has a position in everyone's deal, they will always be in a position to collect first in a default (even if ultimately they have to give it back to the more senior positions through litigation). If everyone lays down their swords without being legally forced to, that will encourage a handful of players to continue using them to their own advantage against everyone else. One has to consider the consequences of this. In two years from now when a funder realizes it has lost millions of dollars as a result of bowing to a sudden bout of negative public opinion, do you think they will be able to turn to their investors and say "well hey, a story in a magazine 2 years ago made them look bad so... we decided to run an unprofitable business going forward and lose all your money"?

So far nothing illegal has been alleged about their use. They have been portrayed in a very very unfavorable light (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it) but as long as their use is legal, expect that many companies will continue to use them.

I'm not advocating for them, I'm just pointing out that it's very unlikely that every company will just stop using them because a magazine reporter told the world he thinks they're predatory. It's good PR right now for those who never use them to assert publicly that they don't use them and don't approve of them just as it's good PR for politicans to come out right now and say they support small businesses. Unless COJs are actually made illegal in the manner currently used, there will still be funders that use them.

[Fundingfordollars]

I'm not so sure about that.

1. Some investors backing funders require that the deals have COJs. Without them, the funders may be forced out of business. (not saying this is bad)

2. If everyone gets rid of COJs except one major company and that major company has a position in everyone's deal, they will always be in a position to collect first in a default (even if ultimately they have to give it back to the more senior positions through litigation). If everyone lays down their swords without being legally forced to, that will encourage a handful of players to continue using them to their own advantage against everyone else. One has to consider the consequences of this. In two years from now when a funder realizes it has lost millions of dollars as a result of bowing to a sudden bout of negative public opinion, do you think they will be able to turn to their investors and say "well hey, a story in a magazine 2 years ago made them look bad so... we decided to run an unprofitable business going forward and lose all your money"?

So far nothing illegal has been alleged about their use. They have been portrayed in a very very unfavorable light (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it) but as long as their use is legal, expect that many companies will continue to use them.

I'm not advocating for them, I'm just pointing out that it's very unlikely that every company will just stop using them because a magazine reporter told the world he thinks they're predatory. It's good PR right now for those who never use them to assert publicly that they don't use them and don't approve of them just as it's good PR for politicans to come out right now and say they support small businesses. Unless COJs are actually made illegal in the manner currently used, there will still be funders that use them.

Sean is absolutely correct. COJ`s arent illegal. Going forward lenders will have to be careful how they speak to these clients they are collecting money from . How many negative articles have been written about this industry ? How many lawsuits have there been that were supposed to end this industry ? example Advance Me vs everyone ? This industry will just continue to grow because these businesses need this product. Just keep plugging away and good luck to you all !!!!

[Davincinc]

Sean is absolutely correct. COJ`s arent illegal. Going forward lenders will have to be careful how they speak to these clients they are collecting money from . How many negative articles have been written about this industry ? How many lawsuits have there been that were supposed to end this industry ? example Advance Me vs everyone ? This industry will just continue to grow because these businesses need this product. Just keep plugging away and good luck to you all !!!!

doesn't the coj circumvent due process?

[Fundingfordollars]

doesn't the coj circumvent due process?

Im not a lawyer so I cant answer that ...Since there is no collateral to these advances a lender asking for a COJ should be no issue if the merchant has no other intention but to pay the lender back.

[Jstarr]

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...A-B52ACBC5C5A9


Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) introduced (S.3717) the Small Business Fair Lending Act, legislation that seeks to protect small businesses by closing a loophole used by nefarious lenders, and allowing the ability for them to be heard in a court of law. The bill codifies the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) 1985 ban on confessions of judgement, and extends it to include small business borrowers. Confessions of judgment require a borrower to give up his or her rights in court before obtaining a loan, and allows the lender to seize the borrower’s assets, without warning, in order to satisfy the debt. Although many states have banned this practice for small business loans and for individuals, borrowers remain exposed due to the current FTC loophole. The Small Business Lending Fairness Act provides small businesses with the same protections consumers already have. Last month, Bloomberg published an in-depth investigative report on this unscrupulous lending tactic, which has allowed creditors to destroy the lives of tens of thousands of borrowers without notice or opportunity for defense.

“With this new bill, we are taking another step toward protecting America’s small businesses—the foundation of our economy—by preserving the right of a business to be heard in a court of law before a potential credit default,” Rubio said. “I remain committed to protecting our small businesses, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort by passing this bill.”

“When we let financial predators harm hardworking Americans through scams like confessions of judgment, we undermine the dignity of work that makes this country great,” said Brown. “This bipartisan bill ensures that consumers and small business owners benefit from protections that prevent predatory lenders from stripping away their hard earned money under cover of night.”

The Small Business Lending Fairness Act:

• Codifies the FTC’s 1985 ban on confessions of judgment in law in consumer loan contracts, and

• Expands the ban to provide these protections to business borrowers as well.

[mcspecialist]

I believe this is correct, which is how Tammy Tran was able to get all her money back from several funders including $275k from WGF as a judgement to their "debtors page" listed in their bankruptcy. Keep in mind she renewed with them 4-5 times and also was stacked with 5/6 positions every time I seen her submission. Ended up suing them all, guess thats why attorney's are restricted if not prohibited industries.

[fundingsmbs]

We had a merchant that had their bank and their mothers bank frozen by Pearl because they owed $20K on a $180K balance still and tried speaking to their staff about the situation and they wouldn't listen. It took the merchant 7 weeks to get Pearl to release the COJ. When they threatened Pearl with a lawsuit it finnaly got the COJ released. These are the reasons these stories are surfacing.

[fundingsmbs]

doesn't the coj circumvent due process?

if you read them, which, i don't think many do, it clearly states "waive any and all rights that we may appear in any action and defend same" Some even list that they had the right to counsel and voluntarily and knowingly declined to do so by signing one. This was a Kalamata COJ. Also filings in NY.

[Chambo]

doesn't the coj circumvent due process?

That is the argument. The same argument is made about mandated arbitration as well

[GoodCustomerService]

COJ's used to have language regarding a cure period. A letter for notice of default was sent out certified mail, email, texts and VM's were sent to the merchant as well. That was normal and made sense. Stacking made the cure notice period impossible to hold to for a funder.

[jenk12]

doesn't the coj circumvent due process?

The right to have your day in court is a due process right, but such rights can be waived. The COJ is essentially a waiver of a merchant's right to a civil suit in the event of a breach. It's similar to an arbitration clause in that the parties are waiving their due process rights to be sued in state or federal court.