Our previous article discussed the predictability of usury litigation involving merchant cash advance (MCA) agreements with choice of law clauses in New York, although we posited that things would get (a bit) crazier. But New York is not the only forum in which MCA customers (referred to as “merchants”) assert usury claims.
Despite New York’s choice of law and venue provisions, MCA funders are often forced to defend the legality of their New York MCA agreements when domesticating judgments or being sued by merchants in Sister States, or when making claims in the bankruptcy courts where the debtor merchants are. . Sometimes these procedures don’t go well for funders, but they provide instructive lessons for securing MCA contracts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third-party online distributors of ALM’s extensive collection of current and archived versions of legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law clients may access and use ALM content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
If you have any questions, call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]