[abfunders]

The potential scenario i imagine in my head is:

Assuming you do some volume with them

- You fund a deal and earn $5-10k commission
- later on some other broker submits statements to them for your merchant or the merchant tries to get a renewal, they see that the merchant stacked
- they could care less who stacked it, your the iso on record, they clawback commission or offset the clawback against pending commissions
- you call them and argue with them nothing gets resolved
- you speak to an attorney and he will charge you 5-10k to file the lawsuit.
- you decide its not worth it and you take the hit and move on.

Yes, that's the question. However, why would they do it that way? The places that aren't professional could do that. Brokers who aren't professional that don't pay commissions, they'll give excuses all day long why they didn't and never pay. However, a big firm has compliance and lawyers, and their own lawyers won't let them do something like "sue first, let them sue us to get it back." Especially when it's just so easy to trace and do your due diligence up-front. Credibly doesn't have a bad reputation, no reason to assume they'd ruin their name for that.

And of course, this new contracts helps Credibly reinforce their no-stack preferences. If you're afraid of this scenario, the ISO should create an email thread after funding congratulating the merchant and stating clearly, "DO NOT STACK, because here are the consequences."

On the flip-side, no-stack clauses for first positions keep merchants stuck behind "term" debt! There's a reason why MCAs came behind SBAs and 2nd stacks came around behind 1st positions. I prefer what Quikstone and PIRS and TMR do with add-ons. What do you want a merchant to do that took out $50k now *but qualified for $200k), and needs another $50k next week and Credibly won't give it to them because they already have a position?