I don't think the banks being stacked on are going to take merchants out of business because of a 2nd position advance~~~(people are coming into their establishments repossessing business equipment?)~~~ -NEVER HAPPENING-. I think there are folks that can stack responsibly and some folks do it in a manner where they put merchants out of business. If any of the above merchants funding companies went after a merchant in that manner.. not only would it cause the merchant to not be able to pay back the primary advance, but it would also cost that company a Ton of money in legal. Thinking that a merchant is going to stand by and allow someone to put them out of business because they're paying on 2 deals at once is a mouthful AND quite frankly i think there is an appalling lack of perspective on what is happening in this industry. Tortious interference is NOT an open shut case, and for those companies with money for Legal.. would not only fight the person or persons doing the suing but would also defend the merchant in said case. Think about it, Advance company one funds 50k. advance two is 10k. both deals go bad. It's not so easy to prove that the layering caused the merchant going out of business or caused default.(In Court I'm saying) - so now, we go to court.. The primary advance company already has already lost money on the deal, now you want to throw good money after bad. AND.. God forbid you Sue a "smaller" stack type company and you don't realize or consider that they actually have some money... OH BOY.. That 50k default could cost 10's of thousands if not well in the 6 digits to fight in court... who losses here?? No company is going to put a merchant out of business for taking a second advance. If the deal does go bad.. Its a large risk to sue. Bottom Line.