Category: Uncategorized

Restaurant owners, if you’ve taken out an MCA loan, which stands for Merchant Cash Advance, and you feel like you’re absolutely drowning in a sea of overwhelming debt and never-ending financial obligations, then let me tell you — you’re not alone, my friend, because I’ve seen countless hardworking, dedicated business owners, just like you, in the exact same overwhelming, almost impossible situation. Many of these owners, in their moment of desperation, take out one MCA loan just to keep their doors open, their employees paid, and the lights on, only to later realize, often far too late, that it’s like signing away all of your future earnings, every bit of income that could help your business thrive and grow. The worst part, the most heart-wrenching aspect of this whole situation, is that these MCA lenders, who often present themselves as friendly financial partners, structure their agreements in such a deceptively manipulative way — you might think you’re just signing for some quick, temporary cash, but the devil, as they say, is in the details, the fine print, that most people never even notice. They sneak in sneaky clauses and traps that will ensnare you and slowly bleed your hard-earned revenue dry with their relentless daily ACH withdrawals.

State Laws That Can Help You Fight MCA Lenders

Let’s take a moment to talk about New York law, just for a second, because it’s incredibly important to understand. In the case of Pearl Capital Rivis Ventures, LLC v. RDN Construction, Inc., the court actually ruled that if the MCA is structured like a loan, even though it’s often disguised as a sale of receivables, it might be void under usury laws — yes, you read that right, usury! Usury laws are designed to protect borrowers, people like you, from predatory lenders, and that’s a key piece of defense in your fight. If you can prove, with solid evidence, that an MCA contract is actually a loan, not just a sale of receivables, and that the interest rate exceeds 16% for civil cases or 25% for criminal cases, guess what? It’s illegal, and that’s a game-changing twist that gives you immense leverage to fight back, even if your lender acts as though they’re invincible.

Now, let’s shift our focus to California, which, believe it or not, provides even stronger defenses against unfair lending practices under Cal. Fin. Code § 22302. If an MCA contract is found to be “unconscionable” — which is just a legal term meaning that the terms are so wildly unfair, they shock the conscience of the court — the entire contract can actually be struck down. Think about that for a moment: if the terms are so bad, so outrageously stacked against you, the court might not even let the lender enforce them. This is a powerful tool that restaurant owners need to know about.

Leverage Usury Laws Across Different States

In Illinois, under the Illinois Loan Interest Act, if the MCA contract is viewed by the court as a loan, and the effective interest rate crosses over 9%, we can make a very strong argument that it’s usurious, meaning it violates the state’s laws against excessively high interest rates. That’s a powerful defense strategy, especially when MCA lenders, who often operate in the shadows, try to argue that their advances aren’t actually loans. But, believe me, every state, from Texas to New Jersey, has its own specific usury laws, and knowing how to leverage these laws is crucial for protecting your business. In Texas, for instance, any interest rate over 10% could be considered criminal, and in New Jersey, the cap is even tougher — 30% is the absolute limit.

Here’s something most restaurant owners don’t realize: many MCA companies aren’t even licensed lenders, which opens up a whole new avenue of defense. In Florida, for example, under Fla. Stat. § 516.02, if an MCA operates as a loan but the company isn’t properly licensed, that’s straight-up illegal.

Improper Service and How It Can Be a Defense

Now, let’s talk about another critical defense strategy — improper service of process. Can you fight MCA claims based on the fact that they didn’t properly notify you about a lawsuit? Absolutely, you can. I’ve seen cases where MCA lenders didn’t even bother to properly notify restaurant owners, like yourself, about the legal actions they were taking, which is a huge violation of due process rights. If they don’t follow the right legal steps — serving papers in the proper manner, at the right time, to the right person — we can push for dismissals on technicalities, which can throw a huge wrench into their plans.

When MCA lenders come for your cash with those relentless daily debits, I always tell my clients that we can get temporary restraining orders (TROs) to freeze collections immediately. These TROs give you some breathing room, some time to get your finances in order, and most importantly, time to fight back in court. Judges don’t like unfairness, and that’s something we can use to your advantage in court, especially when the terms of the MCA are wildly unfair.

The Importance of UCC Liens and Their Impact

Now, let’s dive into UCC liens, which is another favorite tactic MCA lenders use. These lenders love filing liens on your business assets — your equipment, your bank accounts, even the very chairs in your restaurant. These liens can effectively freeze everything, making it nearly impossible to operate. But here’s the twist: if the lien wasn’t properly filed, we can get it lifted, and you can get back to business. A real-world example is the case of In re Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P., where a bankruptcy court actually held that improper UCC filings were invalid, meaning the lender lost their priority on the lien. This means it’s possible, with the right strategy, to knock out their lien rights entirely, especially if they didn’t follow the proper legal procedures.

Confession of Judgment Clauses and Their Risks

Now, let’s talk about confession of judgment clauses, which are another sneaky tool that MCA lenders love to use. These clauses allow the lender to win a court judgment without even going to trial. But here’s the kicker — in New York, under N.Y. CPLR § 3218, you can actually attack that confession as fraudulent, especially if the lender used deceptive tactics to get you to sign. A confession of judgment may sound scary, but it’s not always as ironclad as MCA lenders want you to believe. If we can show that the contract was signed under duress or that there was no real agreement between the parties, judges can toss it out. I’ve fought these clauses and won partial dismissals — and in some cases, full reversals.

Why MCA Lenders Are Vulnerable in Court

Here’s what MCA lenders don’t want you to know: they’re vulnerable when you bring the fight back. They prey on small business owners — especially restaurant owners — because they know you’re too busy running your business to notice the fine print or the legal traps they’ve set. I’ve had cases where MCA lenders threatened to completely destroy a business, but we used improper contract structuring as our main defense, and we won. The terms were so vague, so poorly written, that the court ruled in our favor, and the lender was left with nothing. These lenders hate it when you know the law because it takes away their power over you.

How Bankruptcy Can Help MCA Victims

If you think you’re completely stuck, drowning in debt with no way out, bankruptcy isn’t always the end of the road. In fact, Chapter 11 bankruptcy can allow restaurant owners to reorganize their debt, including their MCA liabilities. This process forces lenders to the negotiating table, and it gives you a chance to regain control of your business. If you’re hit with multiple MCA loans, it’s not over. Courts have combined cases before, forcing multiple MCA lenders to share in the recoveries, and in some cases, they end up getting pennies on the dollar. This strategy, called equitable subordination, is something we’ve used in several MCA defense cases to protect restaurant owners from financial ruin.

Small Wins Matter in MCA Defense

Sometimes, winning a full victory might not be possible, but even a partial victory can make a world of difference. Reducing payments, extending the terms of the loan, or even freezing collections for a period of time can be life-saving for a restaurant. These small wins add up, giving you the time and space you need to recover. Another critical tactic is negotiation. I’ve personally negotiated settlements with MCA lenders where we’ve reduced the total amount owed by 50% or more. Lenders don’t like fighting in court — it’s expensive and time-consuming for them — so they’re often willing to negotiate. Use that to your advantage. More often than not, they’ll fold before a case even goes to trial.

Every MCA Defense Case Is Unique

Here’s the truth: every single MCA defense case is unique. I’ve used local usury laws, unfair business practices statutes, and even bankruptcy strategies to defend restaurants just like yours. The key to success is knowing the right tools for your specific state and wielding them effectively. Some MCA contracts also have arbitration clauses, which can be tricky, but even if you’re forced into arbitration, you can still fight hard in arbitration. It’s all about showing how predatory the terms of the contract are. In many cases, arbitrators side with business owners, especially when you lay out the facts in a clear and compelling way.

Final Thoughts on MCA Lenders

Here’s my final thought on this issue: MCA lenders are counting on you being overwhelmed, scared, and feeling like you’re all alone in this fight. But the truth is, you’re not alone. With the right legal strategy and a good defense, you can fight back. I’ve seen restaurant owners come out on the other side of this stronger than ever before — and you can too. It’s never too late to take back control of your financial future.

In the crowded city of Colorado Springs, many small business owners—whether they run restaurants, small shops, or even local service providers—are facing their worst nightmare in the form of Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs), which seem like quick financial help but are actually dangerous financial traps that can lead to catastrophic consequences for their businesses and personal livelihoods. Picture the relentless, greedy claws of these MCA lenders, digging deeper into your business’s profits, your livelihood, and even the peace of mind that you need to keep your business running smoothly. I’ve personally watched too many hardworking business owners, who have spent years building their companies, come terrifyingly close to financial ruin because of these dangerous loans. But here’s an important truth—these loans can be fought in court with strong legal strategies, and even if it’s just a partial win, an experienced MCA defense lawyer knows exactly how to chip away at their unfair tactics and win meaningful victories.

MCAs often hide behind unclear and intentionally tricky contract language, which is designed to mislead the borrower and make it hard to challenge them in court. But I’ve battled these types of contracts over and over again, and with persistence, we can find ways to expose the MCA lenders for their predatory practices. In the state of Colorado, under Title 5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, MCA lenders are not allowed to charge interest rates beyond the legally permitted limits, giving us a legal advantage when challenging these agreements. This law means that if your MCA lender is bleeding you dry with sky-high interest rates, we have a clear legal basis to fight back by arguing the rates are too high and unlawful.

Excessive Interest Rates and Usury Laws

One case I handled in Colorado Springs involved an MCA lender charging a shocking 40% interest rate, well beyond the state’s usury cap of 21%, making it a clear violation of Colorado’s interest rate limits. That was an easy point to attack in court, because high interest rates are the MCA’s weak point, a spot we can target to bring the entire loan agreement under scrutiny. Think about it—why should a small business owner, who is already struggling, be forced to pay 40% interest for what is essentially a short-term cash advance? It’s highway robbery, and it’s also a violation of Colorado’s laws, which makes it completely beatable if we challenge it the right way.

Another important legal protection is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs how lenders can secure and enforce loans. MCA lenders love to slap UCC liens on businesses, allowing them to take assets if the borrower defaults, but the law provides protections. Under UCC-9-203(b), lenders can only take specific assets, not everything you own. This is a major point of leverage in MCA defense cases because many lenders try to overreach by claiming more than they’re legally entitled to take.

• UCC liens must be clear and specific, meaning lenders cannot make blanket claims on all assets.
• Many MCAs file liens without properly describing the collateral, giving us a strong argument to fight back.

In one Colorado Springs case, I successfully got a lien narrowed down to just one piece of equipment, saving my client’s entire inventory from being taken, allowing him to continue running his business. This wasn’t a complete win, but it was a critical partial victory that allowed my client to stay afloat—more like a lifeline than just a small win.

Challenging Deceptive Loan Practices

MCA agreements frequently break the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), a federal law that requires lenders to disclose the true cost of the loan, including all fees and interest, in a clear and easy-to-understand way. This law protects borrowers from lenders who hide behind complicated terms and fees. Under federal law, borrowers must be told the Annual Percentage Rate (APR), the true cost of borrowing, in simple, clear terms without hidden fees or tricky language. MCAs often skip this requirement, hiding the true costs, giving us another way to fight back.

When an MCA fails to disclose the total repayment amounts or the true APR, they’re often breaking state laws too. In Michigan, for example, a lender failed to disclose the real APR, and the court sided with the business owner, cutting their payments. That case, set in Michigan, echoes through every MCA defense case across the country, including Colorado, giving us a powerful tool in court.

In Colorado, MCA lenders claim that payments are based on a percentage of revenue, making them not loans. This tactic is designed to dodge state usury laws, which limit interest rates on loans. But here’s where we catch them: When the payment structure looks and works like a loan, courts often treat it as one, regardless of what the MCA calls it. Renaming a loan doesn’t bypass usury caps meant to protect business owners.

I’ve seen MCA lenders in Colorado argue that an MCA is not a loan, claiming it’s just a purchase of future receivables. But if it quacks like a loan and walks like a loan, it should be treated as a loan. This legal argument was set in In re Talsma, which created a case that future receivables look more like loans than sales, and we’ll argue the same to help you.

Violating Consumer Protection Laws

Another key law we can use in Colorado is the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC), which limits how much lenders can charge in fees, penalties, and interest. If your MCA contract breaks this code by charging too much in fees or unreasonable penalties, we have a strong case to challenge those charges and get them lowered. This is a partial win that I’ve seen over and over again. Arbitration clauses are another tool MCAs use. MCAs love including mandatory arbitration clauses that force business owners into private, one-sided proceedings. But under Colorado’s Arbitration Fairness Act, I’ve been able to challenge these clauses, bringing cases back to public court, where we can expose the MCA’s tactics.

In one case, the MCA lender tried to enforce their arbitration clause, thinking they could escape scrutiny. But when we showed that the clause was one-sided and favored the lender, the judge threw it out, sending the case back to public court. That’s how you win—by exposing their unfair clauses and making them face consequences.

Unfair Business Practices and Legal Precedents

Courts in New York have been ruling on arbitration cases, such as Abrams v. MCA Lenders, pulling apart the predatory tactics of MCA lenders bit by bit. Colorado judges refer to rulings from New York, strengthening our arguments. Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act prevents predatory lending practices and deceptive tactics. MCA defense lawyers use this to argue lenders engaged in unfair business practices. I’ve seen this work in cases where the lender misrepresented terms.

In one case, the lender misrepresented the agreement, then slid different terms into the written contract. That’s deceptive practice, and under C.R.S. § 6-1-105, it’s illegal. California’s Unfair Competition Law also gives us examples. Colorado courts often look at rulings from other states, and McGill v. Citibank showed how deceptive terms lead to wins.

These battles—attacking arbitration clauses, UCC liens, and deceptive practices—are fought daily by MCA defense lawyers. It’s not always about one big win but chipping away at MCA control. Even a partial win can save a business from collapsing.

The Credit Services Organization Act: Another Tool

Another tool is the Colorado Credit Services Organization Act. Some MCA lenders act as credit services organizations, which means they must follow Colorado’s strict laws. If they don’t, it’s a violation we can use. In one case, we found an MCA lender hadn’t properly registered as a credit service organization, and that small violation helped us negotiate a lower settlement for the business owner.

Colorado Springs business owners need to understand: MCA defense is not one-size-fits-all. Every case is unique, and defending against an MCA is like chess, where every move is planned based on the contract, state laws, and past cases. With each win, we give business owners back their future.

Building a Case Against MCA Lenders

Many business owners don’t realize they have a legal defense. They see an MCA default notice and think it’s the end. But with an experienced MCA defense lawyer, it’s just the beginning. MCA defense lawyers aren’t just defending one business at a time; we’re creating ripples in the legal system. Every partial win builds a group of case law for future lawyers. We’re changing how courts see MCAs—as financial traps, not simple agreements.

Precedents from Other States Matter

Legal cases matter, and in New York, courts are ruling against MCA lenders on the grounds of deceptive practices. These New York cases are setting the standard, and little by little, we’re winning the battle. The bottom line: MCA lenders want you to think they hold the power, but MCA defense lawyers know the cracks in their system. We’ve seen their hidden fees and unfair terms and know how to fight back.

It’s not always about getting out of the contract, though that’s ideal. Sometimes, we cut the debt, negotiate, or stop penalties. Partial wins can be life-changing for struggling business owners.

Taking Back Control from MCA Lenders

MCA lenders rely on business owners not knowing their rights. They expect you to give up, but you have options. With the right legal team, you can fight back and protect your business.

If you’re in Colorado Springs, and an MCA lender is on your back, talk to an MCA defense lawyer, review your contract, and start looking for weak points. Together, we’ll find a way to win—even if it’s a partial victory.

The Final Push: MCA Defense is a Lifeline

Every case is different, but the goal is the same—saving your business. Whether through negotiating, challenging a UCC lien, or fighting arbitration clauses, there’s a way to push back.

MCAs are designed to keep you trapped in debt, but we know how to set you free. We’ll use every law, case, and rule to get you relief. It won’t be easy, but it will be worth it.

If you need help, talk to an MCA defense lawyer. This isn’t just a job—it’s a mission. After seeing so many businesses saved, I know what’s possible when you have the right legal team on your side.

Alright folks, let’s talk about San Jose MCA Defense Lawyers—the real defenders of small businesses, especially those vulnerable to predatory MCA lenders. These lenders, often acting in a predatory or even dangerous manner, are made to trap you in a cycle of never-ending debt, which keeps piling up due to high interest rates and hidden fees, leaving you feeling stuck and overwhelmed. And we, as defense lawyers who understand the deep pain and frustration these business owners go through, are the shield you need, offering legal strategies and solutions that can help save your business from financial ruin.

I’ve personally seen too many business owners who trusted these MCA lenders, only to be crushed under the weight of Merchant Cash Advance agreements that were designed to favor the lenders, not the businesses. They seem like a quick fix—cash now, with the promise of worry-free solutions later—but that “later” comes sooner than you think, and it’s often a nightmare filled with aggressive collection tactics and legal threats. MCA lenders rely on confession of judgment clauses, which are downright scary because they allow lenders to bypass the court process entirely and get an immediate judgment against you without giving you the chance to defend yourself. The worst part? They’re illegal in some states like California, but MCA lenders love sneaking them in wherever they can.

The Power of California’s Laws

California has some serious, well-established legal defenses, like the California Financial Code 22009, which clearly explains that MCA agreements are NOT the same as loans, meaning they should not be treated as such under California law. But many lenders, looking to use every loophole, disguise loans as MCAs to avoid the strict rules that apply to traditional lending. We fight the contract’s enforceability, arguing that it should not be legally binding under California’s Business and Professions Code Section 17200, a strong law that protects against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. MCA lenders engaging in fraudulent or deceptive practices? We hit them with unfair competition laws.

It doesn’t end there—these lenders love to file lawsuits in New York courts, even when the business owner isn’t from New York. They do this because New York has rules and legal procedures that often make it easier for lenders to win quickly, especially if the borrower doesn’t have the resources to fight back in an out-of-state court. But that’s where we step in, using every legal strategy at our disposal to bring the case back to where it belongs, protecting the rights of California business owners.

Fighting MCA Lenders Across State Lines

I had a client once, totally stressed out, feeling like there was no way out. His business was being sued in New York, even though he operated out of San Jose, California. The lender used a New York venue clause, meaning they included a section in the contract that any legal fights had to be settled in a New York court, which is totally unfair. We got it thrown out by arguing that the venue clause was unfair and shouldn’t apply because it put an unreasonable burden on the business owner.

California Civil Code 1670.5—this law lets us argue that a contract is “unfair,” meaning that the terms are so bad for one party that they should not be enforced. When you’ve got a San Jose business being dragged into a New York court over a debt trap like this, it’s clearly unfair and oppressive, and California law lets us fight back. And if you’re wondering if this works? Yes. It works. Judges, especially in California, see this for what it is: predatory lending designed to take advantage of small business owners. MCA lenders often prey on these owners, hoping they can get a quick judgment before the business even has time to defend itself.

Usury Laws and MCA Loopholes

Let’s talk about usury laws, which are made to protect borrowers from overly high interest rates. Many states like California limit the interest rates that lenders can charge, meaning there is a legal cap on how much interest can be added to a loan—but guess what MCA lenders argue? “This isn’t a loan—it’s a cash advance,” which they claim makes them exempt from usury laws. It’s a sneaky move to avoid legal limits on interest rates.

But we don’t let them get away with it. Under California’s Financial Lenders Law, if the transaction acts like a loan, it’s a loan, and it’s subject to all the rules and regulations that apply to loans, including usury laws. And those sky-high interest rates? Illegal under California’s consumer protection laws. We go after the lender’s interest rate as unfair, arguing it is so high and unreasonable that it shouldn’t stand in court.

I had another case where the MCA lender was charging triple-digit interest, well over 100%, which is outrageous. We broke it down in court, showing how the lender structured the deal to look like a cash advance when it was really a loan, and we proved it violated California usury laws. The judge agreed, and the debt was cut down, saving my client from financial disaster.

State-Specific Defenses for MCA Victims

Texas allows Confession of Judgment clauses, which are dangerous because they let the lender get a judgment without going to court. But we still have defenses. Under Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 17.46, MCA lenders can be hit for trickery, if they lie about their agreements or fail to share important details.

Many MCA agreements are full of misrepresentations, whether it’s promising flexible payments or claiming the MCA isn’t a loan. These trickery acts can be fought in court, both in Texas and California. MCA lenders often say: “Don’t worry, we’ll only take a percentage of your daily sales,” but what happens when your sales drop? They still come knocking. That’s why we fight their repayment structures as unfair and unreasonable under California’s unfair competition laws.

Rescinding Contracts and Venue Manipulation

Another big win came from using California Civil Code 1689, which lets us cancel contracts, meaning we can throw them out completely, based on fraud or mistake, common in MCA agreements where lenders misrepresent their terms. When an MCA lender lies about their terms, we cancel the contract.

Did you know that MCA lenders don’t even have to be licensed in California? They use loopholes in Financial Code 22050, letting certain lenders operate without a license. But we use that same code against them, showing they acted illegally. And when MCA lenders try to enforce contracts in other states, we bring it back to California law, emphasizing consumer protections.

Using New York Law to Defend Businesses

New York law is important here too—under NY General Obligations Law Section 5-501, we can argue that MCAs are effectively loans—and subject to New York’s strict usury laws, which cap interest rates. In a case I handled, we proved a so-called “cash advance” was really a loan, and because the interest rate exceeded New York’s usury cap, the lender’s case collapsed.

We also go after venue manipulation, which is when MCA lenders force you to sign in New York courts. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.30, we move to dismiss these cases, arguing that the venue is improper and that the case should be heard in California.

Strategic Victories for Business Owners

It’s about protecting your jurisdictional rights. If your business is in San Jose, you shouldn’t have to fight a case across the country. And California courts are starting to see this, letting us defend you locally. Even when we can’t get the whole debt thrown out, we often get partial victories by negotiating down the repayment terms, which can make the debt much more manageable. The threat of court often forces lenders to settle.

Fighting for Strategic Precedents

MCAs aren’t just financial traps; they’re legal nightmares, filled with complicated contracts and aggressive tactics. That’s why, as an MCA defense lawyer, I’m in this fight to make sure no small business owner gets run over. Each case we handle sets a precedent that helps the next business owner. Whether it’s a partial win or a total victory, we are changing the game.

A Lifeline for San Jose Business Owners

San Jose MCA Defense Lawyers—we’re not just lawyers, we’re your lifeline. We know the laws, the loopholes, the dirty tricks—and we know how to win. I’ve been in the trenches of MCA litigation for years, fighting for business owners like you. Don’t wait until it’s too late. If you’re facing an MCA lawsuit, get a lawyer who knows the terrain. The legal battlefield is complex, but with the right defense strategy, you can come out on top.

Flipping the Legal Playbook

Bottom line? Merchant cash advances are legal traps, made to take advantage of business owners. But we’ve learned the legal playbook—and we’re flipping it on them. Let’s make sure your business survives.

Have you ever, in the deepest depths of your business struggles, felt completely and utterly trapped in an MCA loan that seemed, at first glance, like a lifesaver but quickly became a noose around your neck? You’re absolutely not alone in feeling that way, and, believe me, countless other business owners—small business owners, hardworking individuals like you—find themselves ensnared in this exact same situation, desperately looking for a way out. MCA lenders, who many of us in the legal profession consider predatory and downright cruel, often prey on businesses during their most vulnerable moments, creating these impossible debt cycles that feel like a trap with no way out. But here’s the truth—a truth that I’ve personally seen in courtrooms, legal documents, and victories—you can get out, and it’s not as impossible as those lenders want you to believe.

Let’s start with the very basics of this harmful system. MCA loans, which are formally known as Merchant Cash Advances, are loans that are structured to look incredibly simple on the surface—they give you quick cash in exchange for a percentage of your future sales, but the devil is in the details, and it’s a devil I’ve fought many times in courtrooms and settlements. In reality, these loans are designed like traps with astronomical, almost absurdly high, interest rates that can absolutely destroy a business’s cash flow before you even realize what’s happening. Business owners, often with the best intentions and driven by hope, sign up thinking that they’re solving a short-term cash flow problem, but the MCA lenders—who, let’s be honest, are well aware of what they’re doing—know how to make the situation much worse for you and much better for them.

MCA Loans Aren’t Regulated Like Traditional Loans

MCA loans are NOT regulated the way traditional loans are, and that’s one of the biggest problems we’re facing in fighting them. These lenders exploit loopholes, and they take advantage of businesses that don’t have the legal or financial expertise to see the risks upfront. Here’s a breakdown of what we’re seeing in states across the country. In California, for example, MCA loans are technically governed by the state’s usury laws—laws that, in theory, should protect businesses from excessive interest rates—but MCA lenders are always trying to find ways to bend, stretch, and sometimes outright ignore these laws (California Const., art. XV, § 1).

Under California law, specifically through the state constitution’s provisions on interest rates, MCA lenders are not supposed to be able to charge excessive interest rates, but many do so anyway, taking advantage of legal gray areas and hoping businesses don’t notice or don’t have the resources to fight back. Attorneys in California, who are familiar with this kind of predatory lending behavior, often argue that MCA lenders are violating the Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), which prohibits businesses from engaging in any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Claiming the MCA terms are predatory isn’t just a strategy—it’s a winning strategy when presented effectively, and we’ve seen businesses win back their financial freedom through this route.

Understanding UCC Liens in New York

And speaking of New York—another battleground state for MCA loans and the legal fights surrounding them—New York has Article 9 of its Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is a complex and crucial part of business law. This particular section of the UCC covers how MCA lenders file UCC liens, which are essentially claims, on your business assets, like your equipment, inventory, and sometimes even your receivables. But here’s the catch, and it’s a big one—under New York UCC § 9-609, a lender, whether they’re an MCA lender or not, cannot take possession of your business’s property without first going to court and getting legal permission! Yet, despite this very clear legal requirement, MCA lenders do this ALL the time, completely ignoring the law and hoping no one will call them out on it.

MCA defense lawyers, who specialize in helping businesses navigate these predatory lending traps, know how to argue that the improper filing of a UCC lien can be challenged—often successfully—under this provision of the UCC. They often point to NY CPLR § 3213, a civil procedure law that allows for fast action in contract disputes, which is exactly what an MCA loan dispute falls under. This is how attorneys, with careful attention to detail and an understanding of state law, often win—by pointing out these procedural flaws. Sometimes, the win doesn’t even have to be about the MCA loan itself, but about how the lender failed to follow proper legal procedure, which can make all the difference in the world.

Florida’s Battle Against MCA Lenders

In Florida, the MCA battle gets even more heated, as this state has seen a significant rise in MCA lending and legal battles surrounding it. Florida doesn’t have a cap on interest rates for commercial transactions, which means MCA lenders can charge sky-high rates legally, but attorneys in Florida know how to fight back using the state’s FDUPTA (Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act), which gives them a way to challenge misleading or fraudulent loan terms. Florida courts often find that the misleading terms found in many MCA contracts fall under F.S. 501.204, a broad statute that prohibits unfair or deceptive business practices.

If the MCA lender didn’t fully disclose the true cost of the loan, which they often don’t, you’ve got strong grounds for a case. One of the biggest tricks attorneys use is arguing that the MCA is not actually a loan but rather a purchase of future receivables, which is a legal distinction that changes everything about how the loan is regulated. And this distinction, though it may seem small at first, can have a massive impact on how courts view the contract.

Fighting MCA Loopholes in Texas

Here’s where it gets technical, and I know it’s dense, but stay with me—it’s important. In many states like Texas, MCA lenders claim that they aren’t subject to state lending laws because, technically, they argue that they’re not issuing loans, but “buying” your future income in the form of receivables. But… Texas attorneys, who are experts in business law and financial disputes, often argue that despite the MCA lenders’ claims, the contract is still subject to usury laws under Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 302.001, which specifically prohibits excessive interest rates, even in commercial settings like this.

In fact, a case from 2018 in Texas set an important precedent when the court ruled that the MCA contract in question was void due to unconscionable interest rates (TX Dist. Ct. No. 01-19-00740-CV). The borrower in that case won, and that case is now being used as a precedent for future cases where the interest rates are deemed excessive. You see, the strategy here, which attorneys are using more and more successfully, is to expose how MCAs push their contracts into these gray areas of the law—areas where there’s not always clear regulation or oversight—and courts don’t like that. They expect transparency and fairness in all commercial dealings, and when MCA lenders fail to meet those expectations, that’s where the defense can really gain traction.

What You Don’t Know About Arbitration Clauses

Many business owners, often overwhelmed by the legal language in MCA contracts, think to themselves, “Well, I signed it, so I have to live with it.” But MCA defense attorneys—they don’t think that way, and neither should you. Now, let’s talk about arbitration clauses, which many MCA lenders sneak into their contracts as a way to prevent you from ever taking them to court. They think that by forcing arbitration, they can avoid a public legal battle. But guess what? Those clauses can be challenged in many states.

In Michigan, for example, courts have ruled that if an arbitration clause is too one-sided, meaning it only benefits the lender and puts all the burden on the borrower, it can be deemed unconscionable and thrown out entirely (Michigan Contract Law § 440.2302).

The Power of Federal Laws

You ever heard of the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act (12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3)? It’s a federal law that deals with lien priorities, and it’s one that MCA lenders often ignore, assuming it doesn’t apply to them because they think their loans operate outside the usual lending regulations. But attorneys, who are well-versed in both state and federal law, use this act to argue that MCA lenders actually have second-position liens, meaning they are secondary to your other debts, such as secured loans or mortgages. This can be a game-changer in negotiations because it lowers the MCA lender’s priority and gives you, the borrower, more leverage.

Even partial victories in court, where you don’t eliminate the entire loan but significantly reduce the financial burden, can have huge impacts on your business’s ability to survive. Winning doesn’t always mean getting rid of the entire loan—it’s about chipping away at the lender’s grip on your business’s cash flow, one legal victory at a time.

Missouri business owners who’ve taken out merchant cash advances (MCAs) often find themselves trapped by predatory lenders, and that’s where an MCA defense lawyer steps in. The lenders think they have all the power – but they don’t. You’ve got rights, and we’re here to protect them. MCAs are like quicksand. They lure you in with the promise of fast cash but bury you under insane interest rates and daily deductions. Missouri MCA laws don’t allow lenders to do whatever they want, but they’ll try to trick you into believing otherwise. The biggest misconception business owners have is that because they signed a contract with an MCA lender, they’re automatically bound to every unfair term. That’s not true. Missouri law recognizes substantive unconscionability – meaning that, if a contract is extremely unfair, it can be struck down.

The Power of Substantive Unconscionability

Let me tell you about substantive unconscionability. In Missouri, courts look at whether the terms of the contract are so unreasonably favorable to one party that they become unenforceable. This is huge in MCA defense cases. Take Gateway ex rel. Jacoby v. Blue Ridge Bank (2020), where a Missouri court struck down terms of a financial contract because it placed all the risk on one party. MCA contracts often do this – forcing businesses into impossible repayment terms. And guess what? That’s not legal. Missouri’s merchandise practice laws also give business owners a fighting chance. MCA lenders often misrepresent the terms of the agreement or hide fees. Under RSMo Section 407.025, that’s illegal. Misrepresentation and fraud invalidate contracts. We use that.

Fraud and Misrepresentation in MCA Contracts

MCA lenders will argue the contracts are ironclad. They’ll say, “You signed it. Too bad.” But Missouri courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that fraud or misrepresentation during contract formation makes it void. Remember the law: RSMo Section 432.050. Another key defense is proving the lender violated Missouri’s lending laws. MCA lenders often disguise their loans as “purchases of receivables” to avoid being regulated like traditional lenders. But Missouri courts see through this. It’s just a loan dressed up in fancy language. Missouri courts have ruled on the importance of substance over form. It’s not about what the lender calls the deal; it’s about what it really is. In re Peyton (2021) saw a Missouri business owner win a case because the court recognized that the MCA was actually a loan.

Missouri Usury Laws: A Key Defense

And if the MCA is a loan, lenders may be violating Missouri’s usury laws. Missouri caps interest rates at 9% per year for loans. Yet MCAs charge astronomical fees, often disguised as “fees” or “charges.” MCA defense attorneys use this cap to argue for a partial victory. Speaking of fees, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) can also work in your favor. Many MCAs involve UCC liens on your business assets, but if the lender didn’t properly file or notify you, those liens can be invalid. Ever heard of Revised Article 9 of the UCC? The UCC helps us challenge MCA liens. Under UCC Section 9-203, a lender must meet strict requirements for a lien to be valid, including proper filing and notification. Without this? Your assets could be freed from their grip.

Fighting Confessions of Judgment in Missouri

MCA lenders are infamous for issuing confessions of judgment (COJs), where they try to force you to agree they can collect any time without notice. But Missouri courts often find these COJs are unconstitutional – depriving you of your right to due process. A major case to note is Fleming v. Missouri Dept. of Revenue (2019), where Missouri courts reaffirmed that due process is non-negotiable. COJs attempt to bypass due process – and that’s a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Missouri business owners can fight this. MCA lenders will threaten to shut your business down with COJs. But Missouri courts have consistently held that even if you signed a COJ, they won’t enforce it if it violates your constitutional rights. Always remember, contracts don’t override your basic rights.

Bad Faith and Misconduct in MCA Lending

One of the most effective defenses is showing that the lender acted in bad faith. Missouri’s laws protect against predatory lending practices, and MCA lenders often act deceptively, especially in the way they present terms. Bad faith is a powerful argument. In Missouri, acting in bad faith can void a contract under RSMo Section 400.1-203, which requires every contract to be executed in good faith. If we can prove the lender hid information or used deceitful practices, the contract might be invalid. What’s bad faith? Hiding fees, inflating charges, or failing to disclose how repayments will cripple your business. In MCA defense cases, it’s common to expose how lenders took advantage of the borrower’s financial stress. Missouri courts don’t tolerate that.

Exposing Garnishment Violations in MCA Cases

When MCA lenders garnish your accounts, they often overstep their bounds. Garnishments have strict rules, and if a lender takes more than they’re entitled to, that’s grounds for legal action. We’ve seen Missouri courts push back on these aggressive tactics. The key is challenging every single aspect of the MCA contract. MCA defense lawyers fight on all fronts – we question the fairness of the contract, attack fraudulent misrepresentations, and tear apart procedural issues like improper lien filings. Lenders will often argue that they’re just following the contract, but Missouri courts demand fairness. Contracts that are oppressive or put all the burden on one side get thrown out. We use legal principles to push back hard.

My Experience in Defeating MCA Lenders

I once had a client who was told by their MCA lender that they had no way out. But after challenging the lender’s hidden fees and unfair repayment terms, we were able to negotiate a significantly reduced settlement. This isn’t just a victory – it’s proof that you can fight back. Missouri courts also rely on restraint of trade arguments. If an MCA contract restricts your ability to do business or grow, that can be considered unlawful. It’s a complex area of law, but in certain cases, these restrictions are ruled unenforceable. Let’s talk about discharge by performance. Missouri law says that when one party fulfills their contractual duties, the contract is discharged. If your MCA lender tries to keep collecting after you’ve met your obligations, that’s illegal under RSMo Section 400.2-209.

 

I have spent countless years, often working tirelessly and diligently late into the night under the dim glow of my office lamp, fighting vehemently against the overwhelmingly predatory and exploitative practices of merchant cash advance lenders, whom I sincerely believe are the very embodiment of the devil in the world of finance, and who have, through their unscrupulous, unethical, and deceptive methods, threatened the very existence, survival, and livelihood of many hardworking and honest Texas businesses that are the backbone of our local economy and communities.

Utilizing Texas Laws to Defend Clients

In the great state of Texas, the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, which carefully governs secured transactions involving personal property and fixtures, has been key and indispensable in defending my clients’ rights and interests, and knowing its details, fine points, and provisions is absolutely necessary and fundamental to mounting an effective legal defense against these predatory lenders. Merchant cash advances often cunningly disguise loans as sales transactions, but under the Texas Finance Code §306.001, such arrangements can be legally recharacterized and reclassified as loans, thereby subjecting them to stringent usury laws that regulate excessive interest rates in the future.

Key Legal Precedents: Cash Advance Network, Inc. v. Prado

The landmark case of Cash Advance Network, Inc. v. Prado, 259 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.), which is an important and influential decision in Texas appellate court history, showed how courts may, through careful legal analysis and consideration, see through the facade and illusion of a merchant cash advance transaction to protect borrowers, and this precedent will continue to influence and shape future cases and legal strategies. In Prado, the court held that the transaction, though labeled and presented as a sale, was in essence and substance a loan, and so, the exorbitant and usurious interest rates violated Texas usury laws’, which is an important point for future litigation. This precedent is extremely important because it demonstrates that labeling a transaction as a sale doesn’t shield it from legal scrutiny and examination under usury statutes, and this will be important going forward in protecting clients from predatory lending practices.

Leveraging the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), found in Texas Business & Commerce Code §17.41 et seq., provides another powerful avenue and legal mechanism for defense against misleading, unfair, and deceptive business practices by merchant cash advance lenders, which we will utilize extensively in our legal strategies. Under the DTPA, businesses can sue for deceptive practices, and merchant cash advance lenders’ failure to disclose the true cost of financing, including hidden fees and exorbitant interest rates, could be actionable, leading to future claims and potential remedies for our clients.

Anticipating Increased Scrutiny of MCA Agreements

The future might bring more scrutiny and examination to merchant cash advance agreements, especially as more courts recognize and acknowledge the predatory and harmful nature of these transactions, and this increased awareness will impact how cases are decided and how laws are interpreted. I have also relied on the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq., which, although primarily designed for consumer transactions, its principles of promoting the informed use of credit through clear and meaningful disclosure of credit terms can influence courts’ views on transparency requirements in commercial transactions, and this will continue to be relevant and important in our legal arguments.

Persuasive Reasoning from Other Jurisdictions

In New York, the case of Pearl Capital Rivis Ventures, LLC v. RDN Construction, Inc., 54 Misc.3d 470 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016), is often cited to illustrate how courts can distinguish between loans and true sales based on the economic realities and risk allocations of the transaction, which could influence Texas courts’ reasoning and judgments. While not binding in Texas, Pearl Capital provides persuasive reasoning on why merchant cash advance agreements may be deemed loans because the risk is borne by the merchant, not the lender, which is a key and important consideration in determining the true nature of the transaction. The allocation of risk is essential; if the merchant cash advance provider isn’t truly at risk of non-repayment because the merchant is required to repay regardless of sales volume, the transaction leans towards being a loan rather than a sale of future receivables, and this will be important in future litigation and legal challenges. Texas courts may look to such reasoning when evaluating the substance over form in merchant cash advance agreements, which could change how these cases are approached, argued, and decided.

Bankruptcy Considerations

Additionally, the Bankruptcy Code, specifically 11 U.S.C. §547, which deals with preferential transfers, could be relevant and important when a merchant cash advance recipient files for bankruptcy protection, potentially allowing for the clawback of payments made prior to filing, which we might utilize strategically to recover funds for the debtor’s estate and protect our clients’ interests.

Crafting Strong Defenses Through Legal Interplay

Grasping the intricate interplay between state usury laws, federal statutes, and case law precedents is necessary and fundamental in crafting a strong, comprehensive, and effective defense, which we will continue to do diligently, carefully, and with steady commitment.

Challenging Confessions of Judgment

Future defenses will likely involve challenging the confessions of judgment often included in merchant cash advance contracts, which can be unenforceable and invalid in Texas because of public policy considerations, affecting how these agreements are enforced and executed. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §31.002 prohibits the enforcement of foreign judgments that violate Texas public policy, which we can use to our advantage in defending our clients. Merchant cash advance lenders sometimes obtain judgments in other states and attempt to domesticate and enforce them in Texas, but we can challenge these under Texas law, arguing that they are void and unenforceable, which will protect our clients from unjust enforcement actions.

Regulatory Scrutiny and the FTC

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been increasingly scrutinizing merchant cash advance practices, signaling potential regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions ahead, which will impact future cases and how courts perceive these transactions. The FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, which could encompass predatory merchant cash advance practices, and this will be an important factor in shaping legal strategies and regulatory responses. By staying abreast of regulatory trends, enforcement actions, and policy developments, we can anticipate future defenses, adapt our strategies accordingly, and protect our clients proactively, which is our steadfast commitment and duty as their legal advocates.

Unconscionability in MCA Agreements

The importance of thoroughly reviewing merchant cash advance agreements for unconscionable terms, which are terms that are excessively unfair or one-sided, cannot be overstated, and this will be a focus going forward in our legal analyses and challenges. Under Texas law, contracts that are grossly unfair may be deemed unconscionable and so unenforceable, which is a key defense against oppressive agreements. The case of In re Olshan Foundation Repair Co., LLC, 328 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. 2010), illustrates the Texas Supreme Court’s stance on unconscionability in contracts, which we will use in arguing that certain terms in merchant cash advance agreements are unenforceable. In Olshan, the court emphasized that both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be considered, which can apply to merchant cash advance agreements, affecting their enforceability and validity.

• Procedural unconscionability involves the circumstances surrounding the contract formation, such as high-pressure sales tactics, deceptive practices, lack of meaningful choice, or inequality in bargaining power, which we will examine thoroughly to identify any unfair practices that may have occurred.
• Substantive unconscionability looks at the fairness and reasonableness of the contract terms themselves, such as exorbitant interest rates, excessive fees, or oppressive repayment terms, which could render them invalid and unenforceable under Texas law.

By demonstrating both procedural and substantive unconscionability, we can argue compellingly for the invalidation of oppressive merchant cash advance agreements, which will benefit our clients by relieving them of unfair contractual obligations.

Commitment to Protecting Businesses

I have seen firsthand, through countless cases and personal interactions, how these legal strategies can save businesses from crippling debt, unfair practices, and the devastating impact of predatory lending, and we will continue this important work with passion, dedication, and unwavering resolve. Each case requires careful analysis of the merchant cash advance agreement and applicable laws, which we diligently perform, leaving no stone unturned in our quest for justice. We will continue fighting relentlessly, even as new challenges and obstacles emerge in this complex legal landscape, because our clients depend on us, and their livelihoods, families, and communities are at stake.

Collective Efforts in the Legal Community

The collective efforts of defense lawyers can push back against predatory lending practices, and we will join forces with our colleagues to share knowledge, resources, and strategies. By empowering more attorneys to take up this important fight against the devilish practices of merchant cash advance lenders, we will strengthen our cause and amplify our impact. Together, we can make a big difference, ensuring fair treatment, justice, and equitable outcomes for all businesses under the law, which is our ultimate goal and mission.

Perseverance in the Face of Challenges

It’s a tiring and exhausting battle, fraught with challenges and setbacks, but the victories we achieve make every effort worthwhile, and we will persevere with determination and hope. We’ll keep pushing forward, using every legal tool, strategy, and resource at our disposal, and we won’t stop until justice is served. The road ahead may be long and arduous, but our commitment won’t falter, waver, or diminish, and we will succeed in overcoming the predatory practices of merchant cash advance lenders who threaten the very fabric of our business communities. Thank you for standing with us in this important endeavor, and we look forward to the future with optimism, knowing that together, we can bring about meaningful change and protect those who need it most.

In the complex field of business financing, merchant cash advances (MCAs) have become a perilous option that many Maryland business owners have unfortunately encountered; it is now more important than ever that we thoroughly explore the legal defenses available under Maryland state law to protect your valuable business interests, financial stability, and future prosperity.

Having devoted my entire legal career to passionately defending entrepreneurs, small business owners, and hardworking individuals from the predatory practices of MCA lenders—whom I firmly believe exploit our business community—I have witnessed the devastating impact that these unfair agreements can impose on otherwise thriving businesses; and I believe that it is important for you to understand how we can effectively combat these injustices through legal means and the application of relevant laws and precedents.

Challenging Exorbitant Interest Rates under Maryland Usury Statute

Maryland state law, specifically the Maryland Usury Statute (§12-101 et seq., Commercial Law Article), plays an important role in challenging the exorbitant interest rates embedded within MCA agreements. These agreements are often structured to disguise true interest rates, and by invoking the Usury Statute, we can address these unfair lending practices. The statute establishes caps on permissible interest rates to prevent lenders from exploiting borrowers; this is important because many MCA agreements charge rates that far exceed these legal limits, thereby violating the statute and opening the door for legal challenges.

A critical defense strategy involves demonstrating that an MCA is, in substance, a loan rather than a true sale of future receivables; by recharacterizing the transaction, we can apply usury laws like Maryland’s to challenge the agreement’s validity. The distinction between a loan and a true sale is important because, under Maryland law, loans are subject to strict regulations on interest rates and lending practices; these regulations can render the predatory terms commonly found in MCA agreements illegal and unenforceable, providing a strong legal basis to challenge such oppressive agreements.

Using the Maryland Consumer Protection Act

Another powerful defense arises under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (§13-101 et seq., Commercial Law Article), which prohibits unfair, deceptive, and abusive trade practices, including those by MCA lenders. By demonstrating that MCA lenders engaged in misleading or fraudulent practices—such as failing to disclose critical terms or misrepresenting the nature of the agreement—we can use the protections afforded by the Act to invalidate onerous agreements and seek remedies for the harm caused to your business.

Applying the Federal Truth in Lending Act

Additionally, the Federal Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq.) may apply if the MCA is recharacterized as a loan, requiring full disclosure of all finance charges, interest rates, and terms, which many MCA agreements fail to provide. Failure to comply with the disclosure requirements mandated by the Act can result in severe penalties and legal consequences for lenders, strengthening the defense for Maryland businesses ensnared by predatory MCA terms.

Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I’ve encountered cases where aggressive and unethical collection practices by MCA lenders violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.), opening another avenue for defense. The Act prohibits abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices; when MCA lenders overstep legal boundaries by engaging in harassment, threats, or misinformation, they expose themselves to legal repercussions and liability for damages.

Challenging MCA Provisions under the Uniform Commercial Code

In addition, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), adopted by Maryland to govern commercial transactions, can be instrumental in challenging the enforceability of certain MCA provisions. Under UCC Article 9, if an MCA is deemed to create a security interest rather than a true sale, lenders must comply with strict requirements regarding attachment, perfection, and enforcement of security interests; failure to do so can invalidate their claims against the borrower’s assets, providing a defense to protect your business property.

Scrutinizing Confession of Judgment Clauses

It’s important to scrutinize the confession of judgment clauses often buried within MCA contracts, which in Maryland are heavily regulated under Maryland Rule 2-611. The rule mandates that any confession of judgment must be accompanied by an affidavit and specific disclosures, making sure that the debtor is aware of the rights being waived; non-compliance with these requirements can render the judgment void and subject to being overturned. By examining these clauses and making sure they meet all legal requirements, we can often overturn unjust judgments entered without the business owner’s knowledge or consent, restoring your legal rights.

Analyzing for Unconscionable Terms

Another tactic involves analyzing the MCA agreement for unconscionable terms, which under Maryland law can render a contract or specific provisions unenforceable due to being excessively unfair or one-sided. Unconscionability arises when the terms are so oppressive that they shock the conscience, such as imposing exorbitant fees or repayment schedules that are impossible to meet; courts in Maryland have the authority to modify or void such agreements, providing relief to affected business owners. I recall a case where an MCA agreement imposed daily repayments that exceeded the business’s cash flow, which we argued was unconscionable; we successfully had the terms revised, easing the financial burden on the client and saving the business from collapse.

Asserting the Doctrine of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

In addition, the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing, which is implied in all Maryland contracts, requires parties to act honestly and not undermine the contract’s purpose or the other party’s rights. If an MCA lender acts in bad faith—such as manipulating debit amounts or interfering with business operations—we can assert this doctrine to challenge their actions, seek remedies, and potentially have the unfair provisions invalidated or the entire contract rescinded.

Examining Lender Licensing Requirements

It’s important to examine the licensing status of MCA lenders, as unlicensed lending can violate Maryland’s lending statutes, potentially nullifying the agreement and exposing the lender to legal penalties. Under Maryland law, specifically the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (§12-301 et seq., Commercial Law Article), lenders engaging in consumer loans must obtain a proper license; operating without one can lead to the forfeiture of principal and interest, fines, and other sanctions. By identifying unlicensed lending activity, we can use this violation to protect your business and potentially eliminate the debt obligation.

Invoking the RICO Act

In defending Maryland businesses, we also explore potential violations of federal laws like the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §§1961–1968), known as RICO, when MCA lenders engage in systematic fraudulent activities or other criminal behaviors. RICO provides for civil remedies against entities that participate in a pattern of racketeering activity—which can include fraud and extortion tactics employed by some predatory MCA lenders—allowing affected businesses to seek substantial damages. By invoking RICO, we not only challenge the MCA agreement but also seek treble damages (three times the actual damages), greatly increasing the potential recovery for the affected business and sending a strong message against such unlawful conduct.

Our Mission to Protect Maryland Businesses

It’s been my unwavering mission to arm Maryland business owners with the knowledge, legal strategies, and representation necessary to combat predatory MCA lenders and safeguard their livelihoods and hard-earned successes. Through comprehensive legal analysis, thorough examination of contracts, and aggressive defense tactics, we aim to neutralize unjust MCA agreements and set precedents that deter such predatory practices in the future, protecting other businesses from falling into the same traps. If you’re a Maryland business owner struggling under the weight of an MCA, know that there are strong legal defenses available; with the right approach and legal support, we can work tirelessly towards freeing your business from these burdens, restoring your financial stability, and ensuring a brighter future.