[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

[staten]

I don't think you do, and it happens all day every day - show me one "senior" lender that stopped taking payments and just decided to put the account into default because the merchant stacked?

And I was referring to the second part of your previous statement "The Senior Lender can sue because in most cases all the assets are secured." - regarding the assets being secured.

If you have a 1st position lender that has their money structured more like a "loan" then ok, maybe some assets are secured. You are talking about stacking - 1st position lenders don't stack - anyone who stacks would most likely be MCA and is buying receivables and securing future receipts, not assets.

Let's all just be honest... it happens every day and some lenders try to sue, most don't win and for the most part no body does anything about it.

Merchants stack themselves, no lender puts the account into default and stops taking payments.

Corporate turnaround poaches MCA ucc's and commits blatant tortious interference, no one does anything about it.

So what is your point, really?

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.

[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

[BB_Cooper]

dpFund what is a no stacking UCC?

staten how are Pearl's contracts illegal? did you read the ruling? A big factor was that their contract was illegible.

kevinhenry how are the assets secured? do you even know what you're talking about?

what the hell are you people talking about?

A "No Stacking UCC" includes specific language in the filed UCC's description of collateral that alerts other future creditors of the 1st funder's contract with the merchant prohibiting the sale of any additional future receivables-

[soscap]

A "No Stacking UCC" includes specific language in the filed UCC's description of collateral that alerts other future creditors of the 1st funder's contract with the merchant prohibiting the sale of any additional future receivables-

Nobody does that and if they do they can and most likely will get sued. The point of a UCC is to inform others that you have an interest in the company (not always secured) as is the case with MCA UCC. It isn't secured because you are purchasing future receivables and if there are no receivables you purchased air...

[J.Celifarco]

A "No Stacking UCC" includes specific language in the filed UCC's description of collateral that alerts other future creditors of the 1st funder's contract with the merchant prohibiting the sale of any additional future receivables-

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

[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.

[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.