[Ryan Shiroky]

i give up... honestly, if anyone should be sued, its the person who SIGNED a contract... if an ISO signs something that says they wont stack on XYZ Funding deals and they do, they should be sued (but lets see them get caught first...) if a merchant signs a contract and it says they wont stack and they do, they should be sued... and if your a funder and you dont want to get layered on, then make an agreement with the stackers and contract them.... SELF REGULATE!!!

[JSL23]

So if Amex gives a MasterCard customer a Black card can MasterCard sue? If I have a line of credit with Chase already will they take BOA to court if they gave me a loan?

If a lender sued another Direct Lender or ISO and won, wouldn't that be precedent setting? That would be a pretty big deal!! Might even go all the way to Supreme Court!

I do read the contracts before they go out, and maybe I am missing something but isn't it the Merchant that is liable and breaching the contract?

I heard about this today, it can effect me (and several others obviously) and I also heard which Direct Lender(s) it is supposedly coming from. Sounds like someone is either flexing their muscles to intimate the little guys or just trying to maximize those retainer fees!

[funding pro]

So if Amex gives a MasterCard customer a Black card can MasterCard sue? If I have a line of credit with Chase already will they take BOA to court if they gave me a loan?

Neither one of those examples is in any way comparable to this topic. Credit card debt is personally guaranteed and do not have any clauses restricting an individual from taking on additional credit cards. If you have a line of credit with Chase it would be secured against some asset. What is BOA giving you a loan against? Does the line of credit say you cannot take additional debt without their consent? Apples to oranges...

All I know is everything has a cause and effect. A CEO from a large funding company probably knows more about what his company is going to do than random brokers taking shots in the dark. I think everyone has an opinion of how this will all play out.

[AndyYSCISOdept]

I AGREE FUNDINPRO...Poor examples using AMEX and MC. They are in now way comparable.

[Ryan Shiroky]

All the pontificators - shut up and go make some kesseff

"You guys are the new blood. You're gonna go home with the kessef. You are the future big swinging d**ks of this firm. Now, you all look money hungry, and that's good. Anybody tells you money is the root of all evil doesn't f***in' have any."

-Jim Young (Boiler Room)

sorry, idk why all these movies are coming to mind...

[JSL23]

Neither one of those examples is in any way comparable to this topic. Credit card debt is personally guaranteed and do not have any clauses restricting an individual from taking on additional credit cards. If you have a line of credit with Chase it would be secured against some asset. What is BOA giving you a loan against? Does the line of credit say you cannot take additional debt without their consent? Apples to oranges...

All I know is everything has a cause and effect. A CEO from a large funding company probably knows more about what his company is going to do than random brokers taking shots in the dark. I think everyone has an opinion of how this will all play out.

You are taking it way too literally. The point I was trying to make is how ridiculous this whole thing is. What I said about the funding contracts, however was dead serious. The agreement is between the Lender and the Merchant(no comment on that?). I know anybody can sue anyone for anything but until there are ISO agreements stipulating that one cannot stack behind any deals they fund together I do not see this holding up in court.

[Chambo]

"You guys are the new blood. You're gonna go home with the kessef. You are the future big swinging d**ks of this firm. Now, you all look money hungry, and that's good. Anybody tells you money is the root of all evil doesn't f***in' have any."

-Jim Young (Boiler Room)

sorry, idk why all these movies are coming to mind...

You DO realize that the true stories this movie was based on...all the perpetrators went to jail, right? Many of them are STILL paying back customers to this day (if they didn't just declare bankruptcy). ALL are banned form the industry

[Chambo]

You are taking it way too literally. The point I was trying to make is how ridiculous this whole thing is. What I said about the funding contracts, however was dead serious. The agreement is between the Lender and the Merchant(no comment on that?). I know anybody can sue anyone for anything but until there are ISO agreements stipulating that one cannot stack behind any deals they fund together I do not see this holding up in court.

Correct. At the end of the day, it is the merchant who signs on the dotted line. but when he gets sued, he turns around and sues the stacking firm who told him it was OK, and "everyone is doing it"

[JSL23]

Correct. At the end of the day, it is the merchant who signs on the dotted line. but when he gets sued, he turns around and sues the stacking firm who told him it was OK, and "everyone is doing it"

Fair point. You can sue anyone for anything nowadays. If a Merchant asks about a Lender's take on them accepting additional funds I would advise them to refer to their original funding contract.

For the record I don't completely disagree with the anti-stacking crowd. I will take second position, but anything beyond that is excessive and would do more harm than good.

[Ryan Shiroky]

You DO realize that the true stories this movie was based on...all the perpetrators went to jail, right? Many of them are STILL paying back customers to this day (if they didn't just declare bankruptcy). ALL are banned form the industry

i just remembered that because someone said "kessef" ... it was based on Stratton Oakmont...

[jbrown]

This conversation seems to have spiraled a bit out of control. I won't name names, but it's not Rapid that I had the conversation with. Not sure where mcaguru came up with that?

My comments were misunderstood. We have 2,000 ISO partners and we have never sued one of our ISO partners. I have a lot of respect for agents and we always try to do the right thing. My whole point was to make everyone aware of what the industry discussion is and to therefore be smart in your own actions. I don't know what other funders have in mind with respect to agents or what they might do. I agree that if you act ethically and within the bounds of your contracts with your funders you should not have any exposure.

[Chambo]

My comments were misunderstood. We have 2,000 ISO partners and we have never sued one of our ISO partners. I have a lot of respect for agents and we always try to do the right thing. My whole point was to make everyone aware of what the industry discussion is and to therefore be smart in your own actions. I don't know what other funders have in mind with respect to agents or what they might do. I agree that if you act ethically and within the bounds of your contracts with your funders you should not have any exposure.

But cross Jeremy, and you get a call from Big Bad Tony Brown!

[isaacdstern]

is that 2 ton tony???

[Achfund]

You DO realize that the true stories this movie was based on...all the perpetrators went to jail, right? Many of them are STILL paying back customers to this day (if they didn't just declare bankruptcy). ALL are banned form the industry

Funny you should mention...I could have sworn one of the managing members (currently rumored to be on the way out) of your company is a convicted felon who is played by or slightly based on Giovanni ribisi in the movie boiler room being quoted. Please correct me if I am mistaken. A Simple google search came up with that

[Ryan Shiroky]

Funny you should mention...I could have sworn one of the managing members (currently rumored to be on the way out) of your company is a convicted felon who is played by or slightly based on Giovanni ribisi in the movie boiler room being quoted. Please correct me if I am mistaken. A Simple google search came up with that

Brother, you have no idea how many of those players are in this biz now... i said it in another thread about regulation, if the feds step in and reg this industry, all the guys from Joey's Fly By Night Funding that took a 6 year all inclusive paid vacation on the federal gov. are going to be pushed right out, and there goes like 60% (if not more) of the ISO business funders get...

[gc543]

Listen, If your going to be the fist funder to sue one of your own ISO's
Then good luck to you. From what I understand you'll be cutting ties with half your ISO business.
So for you to make a forum of a lender gearing up to sue their ISO's .. It's a bunch of crap. Even if they win in court.. Half of their active ISO's if not more will not be sending their deals and renewals elsewhere.

[Ryan Shiroky]

Listen, If your going to be the fist funder to sue one of your own ISO's
Then good luck to you. From what I understand you'll be cutting ties with half your ISO business.
So for you to make a forum of a lender gearing up to sue their ISO's .. It's a bunch of crap. Even if they win in court.. Half of their active ISO's if not more will not be sending their deals and renewals elsewhere.

that is a really good point...

[staten]

Brother, you have no idea how many of those players are in this biz now... i said it in another thread about regulation, if the feds step in and reg this industry, all the guys from Joey's Fly By Night Funding that took a 6 year all inclusive paid vacation on the federal gov. are going to be pushed right out, and there goes like 60% (if not more) of the ISO business funders get...

So many boiler room jokers in this biz. This guy I'm buddies with works a company where a "partner" owes over $10 million in restitution. Apparently every word out of this guy's mouth is a lie and the owner is too stupid to realize. Dumbest of money out there.

[Ryan Shiroky]

So many boiler room jokers in this biz. This guy I'm buddies with works a company where a "partner" owes over $10 million in restitution. Apparently every word out of this guy's mouth is a lie and the owner is too stupid to realize. Dumbest of money out there.

LOL pm me please, we need to have THIS convo in private... I think I know exactly who you are referring to, and if I am right, that is just hysterical... also, "Staten" I am guessing your on the Island?

[J.Celifarco]

Everyone is talking about the contracts and what the merchant signs.. If an iso gets sued it will be based on the language of the iso agreement he signed with the bank. If their is language in the agreement about stacking and the iso does something to breach that that they can get sued and they will probably lose. At the end of the day either the industry gets stacking under control or we will bring regulation on ourselves. I doubt anyone on here can honestly say they think giving a merchant 3rd, 4th and 5th position loans are actually helping them.

[thefundingtreeus]

We as company have a policy that will not do any stacking.We believe that this is not only detrimental to the merchant but also to our industry. If we want to maintain the integrity of our industry and stop any potential federal restrictions we must all abide by these rules.

[MCAVeteran]

Lots of litigation to follow on this subject if the end of stacking is to occur. Lots of folks live off commissions and fundings with stacking. It's going to be a dogfight-

[Sean Cash]

Speaking of stacking and getting sued, check out this UCC language I stumbled upon filed by a funder that actually uses the term tortious interference:

All assets now or hereafter acquired and wherever located, including but not limited to, the following subcategories of assets: a. Accounts, including but not limited to, credit card receivables, b. Chattel Paper; c. inventory; d. Equipment; e. Instruments, including but not limited to, Promissory Notes; f. Investment Property; g. Documents; h. Deposits Accounts;, i. Letter of Credit Rights; j. General Intangibles; k. Supporting Obligations; and l. Proceeds and Products of the foregoing.

NOTICE PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEBTOR SECURED PARTY, DEBTOR HAS AGREED NOT TO FURTHER ENCUMBER THE COLLATERAL DESCRIBED HEREIN, THE FURTHER ENCUMBERING OF WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE SECURED PARTY'S RIGHT BY SUCH ENCUMBRANCER IN THE EVENT THAT ANY ENTITY IS GRANTED A SECURITY INTEREST IN DEBTOR'S ACCOUNTS, CHATTEL PAPER OR GENERAL INTANGIBLES CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE, THE SECURED PARTY ASSERTS A CLAIM TO ANY PROCEEDS THEREOF RECEIVED BY SUCH ENTITY.

[CASHCASH]

speaking of stacking...
stacking.jpg

[DirectMedia_Scott]

Speaking of stacking and getting sued, check out this UCC language I stumbled upon filed by a funder that actually uses the term tortious interference:

All assets now or hereafter acquired and wherever located, including but not limited to, the following subcategories of assets: a. Accounts, including but not limited to, credit card receivables, b. Chattel Paper; c. inventory; d. Equipment; e. Instruments, including but not limited to, Promissory Notes; f. Investment Property; g. Documents; h. Deposits Accounts;, i. Letter of Credit Rights; j. General Intangibles; k. Supporting Obligations; and l. Proceeds and Products of the foregoing.

NOTICE PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEBTOR SECURED PARTY, DEBTOR HAS AGREED NOT TO FURTHER ENCUMBER THE COLLATERAL DESCRIBED HEREIN, THE FURTHER ENCUMBERING OF WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE SECURED PARTY'S RIGHT BY SUCH ENCUMBRANCER IN THE EVENT THAT ANY ENTITY IS GRANTED A SECURITY INTEREST IN DEBTOR'S ACCOUNTS, CHATTEL PAPER OR GENERAL INTANGIBLES CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE, THE SECURED PARTY ASSERTS A CLAIM TO ANY PROCEEDS THEREOF RECEIVED BY SUCH ENTITY.

Sean, great catch! Any desire to share which funder this came from?