Do not see how Rapid has a chance here as the agreement is between Rapid and the Merchant, not Rapid and Pearl (or other funders). Rapid cannot make the claim that receivables are being purchased twice, since unlike invoice factoring, the 2 agreement are not purchasing a specific receivable but a percentage of general future sales. Who is to say that Rapid bought 30,000 worth of future sales and Pearl bought a separate 15,000 worth of future sales? Absent of anyones personal thoughts on the concept of "stacking", objectively speaking, I do not see how Rapid has a case.