[Chambo]

For the sake of playing Devil's advocate and to also hear some feedback, they "defaulted on 1st and 2nd position because of the "no stack" clause in the funders agreements correct? If that is what you guys are referring to (and please correct me if I am wrong). That clause was simply created by the funding company's attorneys. There is no regulation in this industry so they could be in default as per the funders contract but does that hold up in court? There is no federal guideline to back the "no stack clause" which I believe is why most funders do not attack it and stacking still occurs. Future receivables could essentially be viewed as infinite so why can't a business owner sell more of their future receivables to someone else? Thoughts? Comments?

doesn't have to be in regulation or not, if it is stated in the contract. Nothing criminal, just a breach of contract