There’s tremendous amounts of SEO nonsense on the internet. Our goal at Delancey Street is to give you the unfiltered, raw information you need to make a real decision.
“MCAs aren’t loans, they’re purchases of future receivables.” “Look for an experienced attorney.” These are things you’re reading all over the internet.
Now let’s talk about what actually moves the needle when you hire counsel to fight an MCA.
Let’s skip the basics entirely. If you don’t know what a COJ is or why MCAs price at 80–200% APR equivalents, go read the bottom-shelf articles first.
01When you actually need a lawyer (and when you probably don't)
The honest answer first: most MCA stress is resolved without a courtroom. Negotiated settlements close every week without anyone hiring an attorney. Lawyers add value at specific inflection points, a Confession of Judgment that has been entered, a summons and complaint, a fraud claim, a UCC lockbox order, a Subchapter V bankruptcy evaluation. Outside those moments, a settlement firm is often the better tool, faster, and meaningfully cheaper. Delancey Street is a business debt-relief company; we are not a law firm and do not provide legal representation. When a matter truly needs an attorney, we refer you to an independent attorney we have worked alongside; the attorney–client relationship is between you and that attorney directly.
You probably want a lawyer when: a COJ has been entered, you have been served, fraud is alleged, your operating account is restrained, or you are weighing bankruptcy. You probably want a settlement firm when: you have missed ACH debits but no suit is filed, you are carrying multiple stacked positions, cash flow is bleeding daily, or you need a coordinated workout across many creditors.
Most "MCA defense attorneys" are really settlement shops with a bar number
Here's the open secret in this industry: a meaningful chunk of attorneys advertising MCA defense are doing the same workflow as a non-attorney debt relief shop, calling the funder, asking for a 40–50% lump sum, papering it, putting up minimal resistance, and moving the file along.
The bar number gets them past UPL concerns and lets them charge 2–3x. They've never actually litigated a recharacterization argument, fought a COJ, or done anything of note. They've never deposed an underwriter.
"How many MCAn engagements have you taken to summary judgment on the loan-vs-purchase question? How many depositions of funder reps have you taken in the last 18 months?" If the answer is zero or vague, you have a settlement shop with a JD.
There are many clients who would rather pay a settlement shop with a JD, the JD gives them peace and comfort. This matters because funders track which attorneys actually litigate. The ones who do usually get better settlements without litigating, because the funder's lawyers know discovery will be expensive and ugly. The pure settlement shops get whatever the standard hardship matrix spits out.
02The choice-of-law and forum-selection clause is the entire ballgame, and it's usually winnable
That dynamic flows directly into the most important strategic decision in any MCAn engagement. Almost every MCA contract has a New York forum selection and NY choice of law clause, even when the merchant, the broker, the bank account, and the business operations are all in California, Texas, or New Jersey.
Why? Because NY allows COJs (until 2019 reforms, documented in Bloomberg's "Sign Here to Lose Everything" exposé, and still for in-state defendants), NY case law is the most funder-friendly on recharacterization, and NY judges see these contracts daily.
These clauses are not bulletproof. Under M/S Bremen and its progeny, forum selection clauses fail when enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where suit is brought. California's CFDL, the New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act, and the newer disclosure regimes in Virginia, Utah, Georgia, and Texas (HB 700) create exactly that public policy hook.
A good attorney files in the home state, gets the funder to remove or move to dismiss on forum grounds, and then fights the forum clause on public policy. Even losing this motion is winning, because you've burned 4–6 months of the funder's litigation budget and signaled you're not a quick settlement.
03Recharacterization, and reconciliation clauses are the hammer most attorneys don't swing hard enough
Once you've fought to keep the engagement in your home forum, the next battle is recharacterization itself. This is how you can prove the lender defaulted on the MCA, long before the actual default occurred by the client.
Every defense attorney knows the LG Funding / Champion Auto Sales / McNider Marine factor test for recharacterization (true sale vs. disguised loan). The three big factors: reconciliation provision, finite term, and recourse against the merchant personally on default.
What the 5% know is that the reconciliation clause is where you win or lose. Funders write reconciliation provisions that are technically present but practically fake, an illusion: "merchant may request reconciliation, funder shall in its sole discretion review." That's not a real reconciliation right.
When you force the funder's ops people to be in depositions and ask "how many reconciliation requests have you granted in the last 12 months out of how many submitted?", the answer is often single-digit percentages.
That converts a facially-discretionary reconciliation into a sham, which collapses the true-sale defense, which means it's a loan, which means it's usurious, which means it's void. This is the work.
Most attorneys plead recharacterization and never actually develop the discovery record to win it. This is a lot of work, and most clients simply cannot afford the legal fees to pull such an aggressive defense strategy off. But when you use the reconciliation clause, your defense strategy is really the offense strategy.
04Stacking liability, the "who do I pay first" calculus is mostly upside-down
Legal priority vs practical priority
Who gets paid first on paper has almost nothing to do with who actually gets paid. The funder with ACH access and a fileable COJ collects long before the funder with the oldest UCC.
"Senior" funder A had the oldest UCC and the cleanest legal claim, and was the last to see a dollar. B/C/D had the operational leverage that actually matters in MCA collection.
While the recharacterization fight is unfolding, the practical question of which funder gets paid in what order matters just as much. The standard line is: pay the senior MCA, negotiate down the juniors. This is wrong as often as it's right.
The actual analysis:
- The funder with the filed UCC-1 in the right jurisdiction with the correctly-described collateral has priority, regardless of funding date, and you'd be amazed how many funders blow the UCC filing with wrong debtor names, wrong states, or ineffective collateral descriptions.
- The funder with the strongest COJ jurisdiction and willingness to weaponize it gets paid first as a practical matter, regardless of legal priority. Typically, whoever files first, gets priority.
- The funder with ACH access to the operating account gets paid first as an even more practical matter.
The real seniority is: who can take your money fastest with the least process.
Restructuring in MCA stacks means rerouting deposits, opening new accounts at non-correspondent banks, and forcing every funder back to the same starting line, where leverage is reset.
Need help with your MCA debt?
Tell us about your situation. A senior advisor, not a sales rep, will review your case and respond within 30 minutes with a clear action plan. Free consultation, no obligation.
05The bankruptcy threat is more useful unfiled than filed
Surrounding all of this is the nuclear option. A Subchapter V filing (small business reorg, debt limit currently around $7.5M but watch the sunset issues) is the most powerful tool in the MCA defense toolkit, and the best attorneys use it as a credible threat rather than a filed petition.
Once an MCA funder believes you'll file Sub V, three things happen:
- Their unsecured claim gets crammed down to whatever the disposable income test produces over 3–5 years.
- The COJ becomes worthless, automatic stay, plus the judgment is just an unsecured claim in the estate.
- The personal guaranty is dischargeable for the guarantor in many fact patterns under Sub V's expanded discharge rules.
Attorneys who've actually filed and confirmed Sub V plans get vastly better pre-bankruptcy settlements because the funder's recovery analyst knows the alternative is 15–30 cents on the dollar over five years versus 50–60 cents now.
06The bottom line nobody writes
The bimodal market
Small jump in attorney price. Massive jump in outcome. The market is bimodal, there is no middle.
MCA defense quality is bimodal. There's the 90% who do paper-pushing settlement work at attorney rates, and there's a small number of firms that actually litigate the recharacterization, forum, and licensing issues to judgment.
The price difference is maybe 30–50%. The outcome difference is often 60–70 cents on the dollar.
Not marketing copy. PACER is free.
If this is you, do these things this week
- Ask the attorney for case names of recent MCA matters.
- Ask how many MCA matters they've handled in the last 12 months.
- Ask for the outcome of the last three.
- Ask how they bill: hourly, flat-fee, contingency.
- Get a realistic budget for your specific situation in writing.
Frequently asked
Is Delancey Street a law firm?
No. Delancey Street is a business debt-relief company. We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice or legal representation. When a matter requires legal work, we refer you to an independent attorney we have worked alongside. The attorney–client relationship is between you and that attorney, not Delancey.
How much does it cost?
When you hire us and an attorney becomes necessary, we pay the costs.* There's no separate legal bill, you pay one fee to Delancey. * Choose from our network of attorneys or any attorney of your choice, subject to terms and conditions.
Can my advisor work with my attorney?
Yes, that's the model. Advisors handle leverage and negotiation; attorneys handle litigation. The attorney-client relationship is between you and the attorney. When you hire us and an attorney becomes necessary, we pay the costs.* * Choose from our network of attorneys or any attorney of your choice, subject to terms and conditions.
What's a Motion to Vacate a COJ?
A motion that asks the court to undo an entered Confession of Judgment. Common grounds include procedural defects in the original filing, post-2019 NY restrictions on out-of-state debtors, or fundamental flaws in the underlying contract.
