[MaxAEP]

Let me preface really quick - my background is in commercial finance. In 2019, back when folks stood for the national anthem to honor the flag, I partnered with bankruptcy attorneys and outsourced A LOT of distressed deals secured by real assets. I used a team to renegotiate the loan terms w/ senior and subordinated creditors and everyone was winning. 1) The restructure team essentially made the collections on behalf of the creditor and provided liquidity. 2) The borrower was offered breathing room - the loan was extended 36 months and monthly pmts reduced. 3) My referral partners made a residual referral fee (still earning residual annuity on a monthly basis btw) over the course of the new term.

So my question is... what's the overall stance with these groups often labeled as "MCA terrorists"?

These collections teams offer funders immediate liquidity at a discount and keep American business above water. 2 months ago I sourced an entire portfolio of delinquent MCAs to this workout group on behalf of a medium sized funder, they got the bad debts off their balance sheets, and we all won. I tried to do it again with a very expensive MCA funder out of Brooklyn, and they told me to go f myself, called the restructure team "MCA terrorists", and threatened to sue me if I asked their brokers to establish a line of referral business. I understand if a funder is the only one being used by a merchant (might as well hire an attorney to chase the merchant), but if the merchant is stacked on 4-5 positions by different funders its a totally different story.

If you wanna talk privately, PM me or something. Happy to discuss any potential deals if your client is R08ing on the ACH and owes money. Otherwise, open forum here wanna know your thoughts.

[OC Funder]

Let me preface really quick - my background is in commercial finance. In 2019, back when folks stood for the national anthem to honor the flag, I partnered with bankruptcy attorneys and outsourced A LOT of distressed deals secured by real assets. I used a team to renegotiate the loan terms w/ senior and subordinated creditors and everyone was winning. 1) The restructure team essentially made the collections on behalf of the creditor and provided liquidity. 2) The borrower was offered breathing room - the loan was extended 36 months and monthly pmts reduced. 3) My referral partners made a residual referral fee (still earning residual annuity on a monthly basis btw) over the course of the new term.

So my question is... what's the overall stance with these groups often labeled as "MCA terrorists"?

These collections teams offer funders immediate liquidity at a discount and keep American business above water. 2 months ago I sourced an entire portfolio of delinquent MCAs to this workout group on behalf of a medium sized funder, they got the bad debts off their balance sheets, and we all won. I tried to do it again with a very expensive MCA funder out of Brooklyn, and they told me to go f myself, called the restructure team "MCA terrorists", and threatened to sue me if I asked their brokers to establish a line of referral business. I understand if a funder is the only one being used by a merchant (might as well hire an attorney to chase the merchant), but if the merchant is stacked on 4-5 positions by different funders its a totally different story.

If you wanna talk privately, PM me or something. Happy to discuss any potential deals if your client is R08ing on the ACH and owes money. Otherwise, open forum here wanna know your thoughts.

Many companies that pitch this type of service are also soliciting merchants directly, and are the ones instructing them to R08 in the first place.

[MaxAEP]

Many companies that pitch this type of service are also soliciting merchants directly, and are the ones instructing them to R08 in the first place.

That's pretty dirty. And probably illegal. My team exclusively works with delinquent merchants. And there is no discretionary capital, its just a shared escrow managed by a legal council.

[abfunders]

The issue isn't the restructuring per se, it's always better for the client to get an attorney than disappear and go BK etc.

However, the main issue here is that there's a whole industry of unscrupulous jerks who convince merchants to default when they have no business defaulting. They take 30% of the "savings" up-front (over a few months) and then they turn it over to an outside attorney. There's no attorney-client relationship, there's no "what's best for the client," the jerks care nothing other than screwing over BOTH parties in order to make a few dollars.