[ryan $]

If the client has already pledged the assets under a security agreement and a lender/factor/funder has filed a UCC on the assets of the business, you would be interfering with the relationship even if you entered an agreement to purchase 1% of any or future receivables.

Most funders only file UCCs in event of default now a days.

If there is no anti-stack addendum or clause. I am under the firm belief, stack away......

Dude from Horizon saying he does 1st and 2nds... If your arguing it breaks the contract, 2nds would break it just as much as an 8th position would.

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

Most funders only file UCCs in event of default now a days.

If there is no anti-stack addendum or clause. I am under the firm belief, stack away......

Dude from Horizon saying he does 1st and 2nds... If your arguing it breaks the contract, 2nds would break it just as much as an 8th position would.

If a company has any bank or non bank facility where there is a security agreement in place and UCC filed, the person that stacks (the funder and the company) are breaking the contract as ALL assets are already pledged to the company with a security agreement in place. The remedy would be to have a subordination agreement or inter-creditor agreement in place if a company enters any agreement where the assets are already pledged.

[J.Celifarco]

I din't argue the breaking the contract because i do give 2nd's even though I do see some merit to that argument. I am arguing that a business can only handle a certain % of their sales going to pay back a loan and giving a business a 4th or 5th position that takes the gross holdback way above what any business can handle is wrong.

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

I din't argue the breaking the contract because i do give 2nd's even though I do see some merit to that argument. I am arguing that a business can only handle a certain % of their sales going to pay back a loan and giving a business a 4th or 5th position that takes the gross holdback way above what any business can handle is wrong.

Agreed.

[ryan $]

I din't argue the breaking the contract because i do give 2nd's even though I do see some merit to that argument. I am arguing that a business can only handle a certain % of their sales going to pay back a loan and giving a business a 4th or 5th position that takes the gross holdback way above what any business can handle is wrong.

In most cases where you see 8 lenders in a deal, you may see 8 advances, yet still be under your % of what you see is fair...... this is because of issues with the deal.

[ryan $]

In most cases where you see 8 lenders in a deal, you may see 8 advances, yet still be under your % of what you see is fair...... this is because of issues with the deal.

In other deals, merchants lose control and make poor decisions.

[TheUnderwritingProdigy]

In other deals, merchants lose control and make poor decisions.

Yes, which is why ISO's shouldn't push more positions so that they can take money from Peter to pay Paul, and then find themselves with even greater daily payments, which results in them having to take an additional advance, and then another one, and another one... having a merchant go belly up means every funder gets screwed, and ISO's lose out on residual commission from renewals.