[Yankeeman07]

I've heard a lot about merchant defaults from brokers, on df, and from merchants themselves when a caller. I was looking up an old lead to check his background on google and merchant had numerous defaults. But what was astonishing was the rate funders are filing default judgments. Here's just 2 days of filings in Kings/Ontario County courts crazy in the months of Jan/Feb. Reconciliation is definitely not at play here.

Jan 10 - https://unicourt.com/courts/state/ki...S=ct_ltst_view

Feb 02 - https://unicourt.com/courts/state/on...&init_S=c_brcm

That type of systematic filing can only lead to one thing for these funders. An equal and opposite negative reaction from defendant attorneys who will use new usury case laws as a means of defense etc. In turn, these funders should hope the contracts they are suing for are complaint. If not, you told on yourself, no one else to blame but yourself. All it takes is one ambulance chasing MCA recovery attorney to recognize that the contract in question is usury, case dismissed and a new one on plaintiff being filed by what's her name.

Concept To Ponder _ A True MCA Contract cannot have a default - unless the merchant is masking-diverting their daily sales.