[J.Celifarco]

Buying future receivables or receipts are assets that may be secured by another party.

Most Senior Lenders either don't know their customer has taken a cash advance or have ignored it not to upset the relationship because the client is current on payments. If things go sideways, you can cool believe the senior lender or bank will defend their position.

I am having a hard time following what you are trying to say. The whole reason MCA can charge what they do is because we are buying future receivables this is an unsecured transaction. Once it is secured you are subject to different lending guidelines and need licenses depending on the state. You cant have it both ways either it is a LOAN or it is an MCA but what you are describing sounds like you are trying to be both at the same time which you cant do.

Also please let me know what you mean by SENIOR LENDER

[ADiamond]

Buying future receivables or receipts are assets that may be secured by another party.

Most Senior Lenders either don't know their customer has taken a cash advance or have ignored it not to upset the relationship because the client is current on payments. If things go sideways, you can cool believe the senior lender or bank will defend their position.

maybe a real bank, not an alternative lender. again happens every day no one does ****, all show and no go all talk and no walk

[soscap]

I have never heard of a NO STACKING UCC

how does this differ from a regular ucc and what makes anyone think that people will listen and not stack. Most stackers dont even do a UCC search all hey do is look at the bank account and see who is taking payments and see if they think they can get in and out before the business goes under. They dont care about the positions in front of them so why would they care about the UCC filed

That is true for most. But believe it or not SOS does care about our merchants. We do stack but the MOST important factor to us is that the merchant stays in business even when we are done with them. We are providing financing to HELP not hurt the merchants.

[Kevin Henry-Seacoast]

I am having a hard time following what you are trying to say. The whole reason MCA can charge what they do is because we are buying future receivables this is an unsecured transaction. Once it is secured you are subject to different lending guidelines and need licenses depending on the state. You cant have it both ways either it is a LOAN or it is an MCA but what you are describing sounds like you are trying to be both at the same time which you cant do.

Also please let me know what you mean by SENIOR LENDER

JC-We are Senior Lenders. We offer factoring facilities and asset based lines of credit.

[soscap]

I am having a hard time following what you are trying to say. The whole reason MCA can charge what they do is because we are buying future receivables this is an unsecured transaction. Once it is secured you are subject to different lending guidelines and need licenses depending on the state. You cant have it both ways either it is a LOAN or it is an MCA but what you are describing sounds like you are trying to be both at the same time which you cant do.

Also please let me know what you mean by SENIOR LENDER

I think what he is referring to is a true default such as blocking payments, hiding receivables... In those cases you can go after assists and are "secured"

[J.Celifarco]

I think what he is referring to is a true default such as blocking payments, hiding receivables... In those cases you can go after assists and are "secured"

what I read was a UCC with specific language to stacking which i did not think was possible , and SOS like you said most dont care which is why even if there is a magic UCC that people want to file it would require these companies taking the time to do a UCC search which i doubt they will do

[J.Celifarco]

I did not know that differentiated you from anyone else who helped facilitate funding for their clients. I dont think the products you offer makes any company different from another what matters is how the clients are treated and if the products and services they receive help or hurt them. No offense Senior Lender sounds like a title you gave yourself to make you sound superior to other people when you are doing the same thing as everyone else getting people money

[Sean Cash]

There are actual banks who use and visit this forum, non-bank lenders, factors, mortgage companies, and companies that purchase future receivables (also a type of factor). It's not all MCA on here and everyone should use language consistent with the products they offer.

[J.Celifarco]

If that is language used in another part of the financing industry it is language I have never heard and just came off sounding a little off in the context of the conversation we are having in the thread

[WestCoastFunding]

What, you guys never heard of the "Please Stack Me UCC"?

[WestCoastFunding]

No offense Senior Lender sounds like a title you gave yourself to make you sound superior to other people when you are doing the same thing as everyone else getting people money

So outside of the MCA space, Senior lending/debt is a pretty common finance term.

[jbrown]

Rapid withdrew the one suit they had against another funder in Delaware after it became likely that they could not meet the bar to prove tortious interference in the circumstances presented.

I believe that Dealstruck's lawsuit against other funders for stacking was also not successful

To clarify Sean's comments, we withdrew one of our stacking lawsuits because we could not get the documentation necessary to prove the impact of the stacking loans on the merchant's cash flow. The merchant was out of business and gone, we believe because of the stacker's actions, and we couldn't get bank statements etc. necessary to move forward.

We have another case moving forward against Pearl in Maryland. The court's opinion, in denying Pearl's motion to dismiss, was supportive of our claim and that tortious interference is a valid course of action.

[J.Celifarco]

To clarify Sean's comments, we withdrew one of our stacking lawsuits because we could not get the documentation necessary to prove the impact of the stacking loans on the merchant's cash flow. The merchant was out of business and gone, we believe because of the stacker's actions, and we couldn't get bank statements etc. necessary to move forward.

We have another case moving forward against Pearl in Maryland. The court's opinion, in denying Pearl's motion to dismiss, was supportive of our claim and that tortious interference is a valid course of action.

Please keep us updated on this as it moves forward.

[soscap]

To clarify Sean's comments, we withdrew one of our stacking lawsuits because we could not get the documentation necessary to prove the impact of the stacking loans on the merchant's cash flow. The merchant was out of business and gone, we believe because of the stacker's actions, and we couldn't get bank statements etc. necessary to move forward.

We have another case moving forward against Pearl in Maryland. The court's opinion, in denying Pearl's motion to dismiss, was supportive of our claim and that tortious interference is a valid course of action.

Can't you subpoena the statements?

[Funder Mark]

Can't you subpoena the statements?

From a merchant that closed up shop? Who will you give the subpoena to?

[soscap]

From a merchant that closed up shop? Who will you give the subpoena to?

The merchant is still alive, why can't you subpoena him?

[Karen37a]

No Stacking UCCs do not exist

Stacking is not illegal

Using poorly structured contracts that are essentially "loan" contracts. That's usury. That's illegal.

I agree with Staten.



And Anyone can sue anyone for any reason These arguments are based on law theories which are based on contract, tort and other common law.

I would have to have had the original contract and be aware of language of it to tortiously interfere with it. Since I cant find the lien on the Ucc lien search I wasn't aware of what it was ( shameful-sarcastic poking at the UCC hiding tactic so you disclose and make my ucc search easier )

I do not like posting these things for public consumption but here it goes.

People use tactics like legal extortion to get out of paying valid $$ to the Lenders they borrow from, now Lenders are using those same tactics? to blame other lenders? Or lock up competition in the market?

I do not believe you could ever win. Unless the other party had that Lawyer from My cousin Vinny.These cases wind up being nothing more than a nuisance case and wind up costing $$ in legal fees. This is a tactic to scare people away .IMO. But you can win, you never know... then you open up a whole new cornucopia of dastardly deeds to follow.I do not believe in overextending the merchant( and I do not do it), but in the end it was the merchant's decision.

There is something called In pari delicto...dirty hands doctrine.

If you are not 100% ethical, dont hold me to the highest standard . So If you ever stacked a merchant, and continue to stack merchants.. can you sue for stacking? Yes. Can you counter sue for Abuse of process . yes. ( not saying that anyone in particular is stacking)If you try to gain advantage or keep a client all to yourself you are creating a Fiduciary relationship with the merchant and Fiduciary breaches could be established if you dont dot an I or cross a T .Then if something goes wrong you can also be charged with aiding and abetting and breach of the Fiduciary Duty blah blah , in steps compliance to say everything is ok.

This is my opinionThe mere existence of a contract does not create a Fiduciary or exclusive relationship, in order to tortiously interfere you have to knowingly do it and with improper motives.

Business's who become insolvent do not necessarily do so because of the interference or stacking that occurs. There is acceptable interference and Tortious interference. Stacking ( responsibly ) without over extending etc isn't tortious in and of itself; it must be intentionally immoral or unethical.
If you do not have an improper motive..negligence is not enough. Now its on a Case by Case basis ( some senior secured debt holds up to the tortious interference test)...prove improper motives and also that the merchant wasn't going under with or without the stack ( if it was a default case). If you can find him and he didnt defraud the second lender as well.

That guy is taking the 5th or off to costa ricaAnd as stated previously I am not a lawyer or expert in Tort law.But I am going to get my Merchant Cash Advance Certificate and Hang it on the wall ! Then go to underwriting and algorithm school... sorry : ) My brokers are lol ...joking..the MCA certificate will actually be good for voluntary compliance for New brokers not regulation.


Stare Decicis

[WestCoastFunding]

Stacking isn't illegal, but I can empathize with 1st position funders who work out debt service models and fund accordingly, only for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th positions to be added on. I guess they better adjust their pricing accordingly.