MARYLAND

This is a search result page



Thanks to the Virus Craze: It May Now Be Unlawful For Telemarketers Doing Business in New York To Call Large Swaths Of The Country

March 10, 2020
Article by:

Are you a telemarketer that does business in New York? A large and growing percentage of the country may now be off-limits to contact, thanks to a recently enacted New York State law that prohibits unsolicited telemarketing sales calls to any person in a county, city, town or village under a declared state of emergency or disaster emergency.

New York General Business Law 399-z (5-a)

It shall be unlawful for any telemarketer doing business in this state to knowingly make an unsolicited telemarketing sales call to any person in a county, city, town or village under a declared state of emergency or disaster emergency as described in sections twenty-four or twenty-eight of the executive law.

The statute, which seemingly doesn’t limit its reach to New York individuals, but rather to any place in which a state of emergency has been declared, may mean that anyone doing business in New York may need to be monitoring active states of emergency around the country. At the time of this writing, those places include the states of:

  • New York
  • New Jersey
  • California
  • Florida
  • Maryland
  • Washington
  • Oregon
  • Utah
  • Kentucky
  • North Carolina

As this law amends Section 399-z, it is a good idea to read the entirety of the section.

AltFinanceDaily is not a law firm. For legal advice related to this law, consult with a suitable attorney.

2020 and Beyond – A Look Ahead

March 3, 2020
Article by:

This story appeared in AltFinanceDaily’s Jan/Feb 2020 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

Looking AheadWith the doors to 2019 firmly closed, alternative financing industry executives are excited about the new decade and the prospects that lie ahead. There are new products to showcase, new competitors to contend with and new customers to pursue as alternative financing continues to gain traction.

Executives reading the tea leaves are overwhelming bullish on the alternative financing industry—and for good reasons. In 2019, merchant cash advances and daily payment small business loan products alone exceeded more than $20 billion a year in originations, AltFinanceDaily’s reporting shows.

Confidence in the industry is only slightly curtailed by certain regulatory, political competitive and economic unknowns lurking in the background—adding an element of intrigue to what could be an exciting new year.

Here, then, are a few things to look out for in 2020 and beyond.

Regulatory developments

There are a number of different items that could be on the regulatory agenda this year, both on the state and federal level. Major areas to watch include:

  • Broker licensing. There’s a movement afoot to crack down on rogue brokers by instituting licensing requirements. New York, for example, has proposed legislation that would cover small business lenders, merchant cash advance companies, factors, and leasing companies for transactions under $500,000. California has a licensing law in place, but it only pertains to loans, says Steve Denis, executive director of the Small Business Finance Association. Many funders are generally in favor of broader licensing requirements, citing perceived benefits to brokers, funders, customers and the industry overall. The devil, of course, will be in the details.
  • Interest rate caps. Congress is weighing legislation that would set a national interest rate cap of 36%, including fees, for most personal loans, in an effort to stamp out predatory lending practices. A fair number of states already have enacted interest rate caps for consumer loans, with California recently joining the pack, but thus far there has been no national standard. While it is too early to tell the bill’s fate, proponents say it will provide needed protections against gouging, while critics, such as Lend Academy’s Peter Renton, contend it will have the “opposite impact on the consumers it seeks to protect.”
  • Loan information and rate disclosures. There continues to be ample debate around exactly what firms should be required to disclose to customers and what metrics are most appropriate for consumers and businesses to use when comparing offerings. This year could be the one in which multiple states move ahead with efforts to clamp down on disclosures so borrowers can more easily compare offerings, industry watchers say. Notably, a recent Federal Reserve study on non-bank small business finance providers indicates that the likelihood of approval and speed are more important than cost in motivating borrowers, though this may not defer policymakers from moving ahead with disclosure requirements.

    “THIS WILL DRIVE COMMISSION DOWN FOR THE INDUSTRY”

    If these types of requirements go forward, Jared Weitz, chief executive of United Capital generally expects to see commissions take a hit. “This will drive commission down for the industry, but some companies may not be as impacted, depending on their product mix, cost per lead and cost per acquisition and overall company structure,” he says.

  • Madden aftermath. The FDIC and OCC recently proposed rules to counteract the negative effects of the 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding LLC case, which wreaked havoc in the consumer and business loan markets in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. “These proposals would clarify that the loan continues to be ‘valid’ even after it is sold to a nonbank, meaning that the nonbank can collect the rates and fees as initially contracted by the bank,” says Catherine Brennan, partner in the Hanover, Maryland office of law firm Hudson Cook. With the comments due at the end of January, “2020 is going to be a very important year for bank and nonbank partnerships,” she says.
  • “…I’M NOT SURE THEY GO FAR ENOUGH”

  • Possible changes to the accredited investor definition. In December 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to propose amendments to the accredited investor definition. Some industry players see expanding the definition as a positive step, but are hesitant to crack open the champagne just yet since nothing’s been finalized. “I would like to see it broadened even further than they are proposed right now,” says Brett Crosby, co-founder and chief operating officer at PeerStreet, a platform for investing in real estate-backed loans. The proposals “are a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure they go far enough,” he says.

Precisely how various regulatory initiatives will play out in 2020 remains to be seen. Some states, for example, may decide to be more aggressive with respect to policy-making, while others might take more of a wait-and-see approach.

“I think states are still piecing together exactly what they want to accomplish. There are too many missing pieces to the puzzle,” says Chad Otar, founder and chief executive at Lending Valley Inc.

As different initiatives work their way through the legislative process, funders are hoping for consistency rather than a patchwork of metrics applied unevenly by different states. The latter could have significant repercussions for firms that do business in multiple states and could eventually cause some of them to pare back operations, industry watchers say.

“While we commend the state-level activity, we hope that there will be uniformity across the country when it comes to legislation to avoid confusion and create consistency” for borrowers, says Darren Schulman, president of 6th Avenue Capital.

Election uncertainty

The outcome of this year’s presidential election could have a profound effect on the regulatory climate for alternative lenders. Alternative financing and fintech charters could move higher on the docket if there’s a shift in the top brass (which, of course, could bring a new Treasury Secretary and/or CFPB head) or if the Senate flips to Democratic control.

If a White House changing of the guard does occur, the impact could be even more profound depending on which Democratic candidate secures the top spot. It’s all speculation now, but alternative financers will likely be sticking to the election polls like glue in an attempt to gain more clarity.

Election-year uncertainty also needs to be factored into underwriting risk. Some industries and companies may be more susceptible to this risk, and funders have to plan accordingly in their projections. It’s not a reason to make wholesale underwriting changes, but it’s something to be mindful of, says Heather Francis, chief executive of Elevate Funding in Gainesville, Florida.

“Any election year is going to be a little bit volatile in terms of how you operate your business,” she says.

Competition

The competitive landscape continues to shift for alternative lenders and funders, with technology giants such as PayPal, Amazon and Square now counted among the largest small business funders in the marketplace. This is a notable shift from several years ago when their footprint had not yet made a dent.

This growth is expected to continue driving competition in 2020. Larger companies with strong technology have a competitive advantage in making loans and cash advances because they already have the customer and information about the customer, says industry attorney Paul Rianda, who heads a law firm in Irvine, Calif.

It’s also harder for merchants to default because these companies are providing them payment processing services and paying them on a daily or monthly basis. This is in contrast to an MCA provider that’s using ACH to take payments out of the merchant’s bank account, which can be blocked by the merchant at any time. “Because of that lower risk factor, they’re able to give a better deal to merchants,” Rianda says.

“THE PRIME MARKET IS EXPANDING TREMENDOUSLY”

Increased competition has been driving rates down, especially for merchants with strong credit, which means high-quality merchants are getting especially good deals—at much less expensive rates than a business credit card could offer, says Nathan Abadi, president of Excel Capital Management. “The prime market is expanding tremendously,” he says.

Certain funders are willing to go out two years now on first positions, he says, which was never done before.

Even for non-prime clients, funders are getting more creative in how they structure deals. For instance, funders are offering longer terms—12 to 15 months—on a second position or nine to 12 months on a third position, he says. “People would think you were out of your mind to do that a year ago,” he says.

Because there’s so much money funneling into the industry, competition is more fierce, but firms still have to be smart about how they do business, Abadi says.

Meanwhile, heightened competition means it’s a brokers market, says Weitz of United Capital. A lot of lenders and funders have similar rates and terms, so it comes down to which firms have the best relationship with brokers. “Brokers are going to send the deals to whoever is treating their files the best and giving them the best pricing,” he says.

Profitability, access to capital and business-related shifts

Executives are confident that despite increased competition from deep-pocket players, there’s enough business to go around. But for firms that want to excel in 2020, there’s work to be done.
Funders in 2020 should focus on profitability and access to capital—the most important factors for firms that want to grow, says David Goldin, principal at Lender Capital Partners and president and chief executive of Capify. This year could also be one in which funders more seriously consider consolidation. There hasn’t been a lot in the industry as of yet, but Goldin predicts it’s only a matter of time.

“A lot of MCA providers could benefit from economies of scale. I think the day is coming,” he says.

He also says 2020 should be a year when firms try new things to distinguish themselves. He contends there are too many copycats in the industry. Most firms acquire leads the same way and aren’t doing enough to differentiate. To stand out, funders should start specializing and become known for certain industries, “instead of trying to be all things to all businesses,” he says.

Some alternative financing companies might consider expanding their business models to become more of a one-stop shop—following in the footsteps of Intuit, Square and others that have shown the concept to be sound.

Sam Taussig, global head of policy at Kabbage, predicts that alternative funding platforms will increasingly shift toward providing more unified services so the customer doesn’t have to leave the environment to do banking and other types of financial transactions. It’s a direction Kabbage is going by expanding into payment processing as part of its new suite of cash-flow management solutions for small businesses.

“Customers have seen and experienced how seamless and simple and easy it is to work with some of the nontraditional funders,” he says. “Small businesses want holistic solutions—they prefer to work with one provider as opposed to multiple ones,” he says.

Open banking

This year could be a “pivotal” year for open banking in the U.S., says Taussig of Kabbage. “This issue will come to the forefront, and I think we will have more clarity about how customers can permission their data, to whom and when,” he says.

Open banking refers to the use of open APIs (application program interfaces) that enable third-party developers to build applications and services around a financial institution. The U.K. was a forerunner in implementing open banking, and the movement has been making inroads in other countries as well, which is helping U.S. regulators warm up to the idea. “Open banking is going to be a lively debate in Washington in 2020. It’ll be about finding the balance between policymakers and customers and banks,” Taussig says.

The funding environment

While there has been some chatter about a looming recession and there are various regulatory and competitive headwinds facing the industry, funding and lending executives are mostly optimistic for the year ahead.

“If December 2019 is an early indicator of 2020, we’re off to a good start. I think it’s going to be a great year for our industry,” says Abadi of Excel Capital.

Income Share Agreements – Operating Under Current Regulations and Preparing for the Future

February 28, 2020
Article by:

The Income Share Agreement (“ISA”) market is rapidly developing with more providers offering ISA programs to students and outside money moving into the space. However, the legal environment remains uncertain, and providers entering the ISA market must prepare themselves both to operate in the current environment and for potential changes.

Background – What is an Income Share Agreement?

ISA providers have set a modest goal: disrupt the $1.6 trillion-dollar student loan market that has wreaked havoc on a generation’s finances by aligning the interests of students and providers. In an ISA transaction, the student does not owe a specific amount of money and no interest is charged on a balance. Instead, the student agrees to pay a proportion of their future income above a specified threshold for a certain number of years. The provider of an ISA has an interest in the student consistently earning a high income for the duration of the contract—because the ISA provider generally does not get paid if the student fails to earn sufficient income.

Evolving Legal Environment

The current legal environment has not yet adapted to ISAs entering the market for funding education and associated expenses. No federal statute directly addresses ISAs and only one state—Illinois—has passed legislation contemplating ISAs. Even that legislation (the Student Loan Investment Act) merely permits a state investment fund to enter into ISAs and does not impact the private ISA market.

California and Washington have both considered legislation related to ISAs, but neither passed anything into law. Indiana’s legislature exempted certain “State educational institutions” from its Uniform Consumer Credit Code, including leading ISA provider Purdue University. However, Indiana did not expressly address ISAs under the UCCC.

No federal or state courts have published cases analyzing the treatment of ISAs under state or federal credit laws. But federal regulators appear to be aware of this issue. In a December 2019 discussion paper on ISAs released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the authors acknowledged the uncertainty created by the lack of authoritative statements from courts and regulators, but did not weigh in on the legal issues.

Careful Consideration Required

When considering compliance with state and federal laws in this uncertain environment, participants must first assess which laws may apply. For state laws, if an educational institution is entering an ISA with a student, the institution must consider licensing, disclosures, and other restrictions applicable under state installment sales acts. Third-party providers must consider the application of lender licenses and associated disclosures and restrictions.

In either case, providers must consider the application of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), the Credit Practices Rule, state laws governing the assignment of wages, and generally applicable state and federal laws, such as laws governing unfair and deceptive acts and practices and certain anti-discrimination laws.

Careful analysis of each statute, implementing regulation, and associated commentary provides some initial guidance. For example, TILA’s Regulation Z commentary excludes an “investment plan” where the party extending capital to the consumer risks the loss of capital advanced from the definition of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act. 12 CFR 1026.2(14) cmt. 1(viii). However, participants must carefully consider with their counsel whether the Regulation Z exclusion is intended to only apply to traditional equity investments because they are not debt, or if it more broadly excludes investments that do not create an absolute obligation to pay.

Additionally, the definition of “credit” under ECOA in Regulation B not only lacks a similar comment, but also includes a comment stating that Regulation B “covers a wider range of credit transactions than Regulation Z.” 12 CFR 1002.2(j) cmt. 1. Although the Regulation B comment arguably only refers to ECOA’s coverage of commercial credit and credit regardless of the number of installments or inclusion of a finance charge, this is one example of how providers must carefully consider each potentially applicable law.

Merely assuming that laws applicable to credit do not apply to an ostensibly non-credit product without conducting an appropriate analysis creates serious regulatory risks.

Potential Federal Changes

In 2017, Senators Rubio and Young introduced the Student Success Act, and in 2019, Senators Warner and Coons joined them with a more robust ISA Student Protection Act of 2019 (the “Act”). The Act proposes a number of important steps. First, it proposes substantive consumer protection rules on ISAs and defines a “qualified ISA” to include only ISAs meeting those substantive requirements. Second, the Act would expressly preempt state laws affecting the validity of a qualified ISA, in addition to state usury, ability to pay, and licensing laws for qualified ISAs. Third, the Act would clarify the treatment of ISAs under federal credit, security, and tax laws, and empower the CFPB to promulgate certain guidance and regulations.

However, that Act has not become law and it is unclear if, or how, lawmakers will address the issue in the future. For example, in response to reports that the U.S. Department of Education was exploring offering ISAs, Senator Warren questioned whether ISAs were “in the best interest of students,” stating they could be “predatory and dangerous.”

Conclusion

The market for ISAs continues to grow, and it’s easy to see why. Given the growing student lending crisis, the presence of an alternative has significant potential. However, due to the current regulatory uncertainty, market participants must carefully weigh the legal risks.


Caleb Rosenberg

Caleb Rosenberg is an associate in the Maryland office of Hudson Cook, LLP. Caleb can be reached at 410-782-2323 or by email at crosenberg@hudco.com.







“Do It Better Than How You Learned It”: How Paul Pitcher Came To Be In Canada

June 27, 2019
Article by:

Paul PitcherFew kids who dream of running their own international business actually grow up to live that fantasy. Even fewer end up working alongside their childhood heroes. Paul Pitcher is doing both, and he’s loving every minute of it.

Growing up in Annapolis, Maryland, the Managing Partner at First Down Funding and SharpShooter Funding studied at Severn School and immersed himself in sport. Under the eye of his father, Pitcher began playing basketball and baseball at the age of 4. Golf came later, and it followed him into his young adult life as he played at a collegiate level while enrolled at the University of Tampa, where he studied International Marketing and Finance. And upon graduation, Pitcher landed a job in Washington D.C., working in sales for the Washington Wizards and Capitals.

Sports accompanied him in each phase of his life, so it comes as no surprise that it is entwined with his current business ventures.

After leaving the Regional Sales Manager position he held with the Wizards and Capitals, Pitcher became a broker, eventually establishing First Down in 2012 – seeing it as a solution to a problem many business owners across the country face: acquiring capital. Offering funds via merchant cash advances, First Down provides financial aid to small and medium-sized businesses.

And after enjoying success in the United States, lightning struck on June 6th, 2015. Out of the blue, over 25 Canadian business owners applied for funding from First Down. Chalking it up to ads First Down had placed across social media, Pitcher decided to dive into the new, northern market, but only after consulting with the only Canadian he knew, WWE Hall of Famer Bret ‘Hitman’ Hart.

Having met the wrestler in 1993, Pitcher gambled on Hart remembering the 10-years-old kid in the Looney Toons t-shirt that he took a photo with two decades ago. And it paid off. Following discussions of what First Down did and how it met the needs of the Canadian market, Hart partnered with the company and now serves as commissioner to SharpShooter, the Canadian arm of First Down.

sharpshooter homeWith the backing of a hero from his youth behind him, Pitcher expanded beyond the borders of the US, and with this came further support from sports stars. Recent years have seen CJ Mosley of the New York Jets, Jacoby Jones of the Baltimore Ravens, and the Shogun Welterweight Champion Micah Terill partnering with Pitcher.

Noting that the spirit and culture of sport has definitely bled into First Down and SharpShooter from both his own personal life as well as the lives of those athletes that are partnered to it, Pitcher affirms that healthy competition is integral to both sport and business.

Believing that it’s just as important to win as it is to develop the environment you are in, Pitcher is in the funding market for the long-run. And it is exactly this that attracts him to Canada. Comparing it to Baltimore in his home state, he sees the Great White North as a region that is less saturated with funding firms like you would find in New York or Chicago, in other words, he sees it as a place of opportunity, where there is room to grow.

Of course, with such opportunity there are growing pains, like the populace’s level of product knowledge as well as the building of trust between business owners and SharpShooter, but Pitcher welcomes it. Emphasizing his love for competition, he calls for more firms like his to enter the market, be they big or small, as according to him, it could only help build upon the culture of non-bank funding that has taken root in Canada.

“Whatever you do, do it better than how you learned it,” are among the final words Pitcher leaves me with, and with the other closing remarks hinting at further expansion beyond Canada, the Managing Partner seems to be living by this maxim. Be it the education he picked up in Tampa, the lessons learnt in sales, or even a chance encounter with a childhood hero, Pitcher appears to be aiming to continually build and expand upon what he has experienced.


Paul Pitcher is also speaking on a sales and marketing strategies panel at deBanked CONNECT Toronto on July 25th alongside Smarter Loans President Vlad Sherbatov and SEO Consultant Paul Teitelman.

Does Your Merchant Cash Advance Company Pass The Scrutiny Test?

April 29, 2019
Article by:

This story appeared in AltFinanceDaily’s Mar/Apr 2019 magazine issue. To receive copies in print, SUBSCRIBE FREE

scrutiny test
The merchant cash advance business has come under repeated fire of late from regulators, legislators and customers. “Every aspect of the industry is under scrutiny right now. Syndication agreements, underwriting, and collections are the subject of bills in Congress and across multiple states,” says Steven Zakharyayev, managing attorney for Empire Recovery Services in Manhattan, which offers debt recovery services to financial companies. So how should funders respond amid these obstacles? Here are a few pointers to help funders succeed despite ongoing challenges from a legal, regulatory, business and public relations perspective:

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CASH ADVANCES AND LOANS AND MODEL BUSINESS DEALINGS ACCORDINGLY

greg nowak hamilton
Gregory J. Nowak, Partner, Pepper Hamilton LLP

In the eyes of the law, merchant cash advances and loans are very different. With a cash advance, a funder advances the merchant cash in exchange for a percentage of future sales, plus a fee. A loan, on the other hand, is a lump sum of cash in exchange for monthly payments over a set time period at an interest rate that can be fixed or variable. While the two types of funding options have certain similarities, funders have to be extremely careful to make appropriate distinctions in their business practices; otherwise legal trouble can easily ensue, experts say.

Most funders know that they are supposed to draw a bright line between merchant cash advance and lending, but it’s critical they put this knowledge into practice. Funders have to ensure the distinction is evident in their business lexicon, says Gregory J. Nowak, a partner in the Philadelphia office of law firm Pepper Hamilton LLP who focuses on securities law.

“THE WORD ‘LOAN’ SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THEIR EMAIL AND WORD FILES”


red xFor example, it’s extraordinarily important that funders don’t refer to merchant cash advances as loans in their business dealings. Business records, emails and other documents can be requested in litigation for discovery purposes. If the funder’s internal documentation refers to cash advances as loans, it’s going to be hard for the company to argue that they aren’t, in reality, loans.

“Most judges want to see consistency of treatment and that includes your vocabulary,” Nowak says. “The word ‘loan’ should be banned from their email and Word files.”

There’s a fair amount of litigation surrounding what is and what isn’t a cash advance. This can be helpful guidance for funders in setting out the criteria they need to follow to be able to defend their activities as cash advances. Even so, the line is somewhat of a moving target and funders need to be stalwart in these efforts given heightened regulatory scrutiny, experts say.

“If it looks like a loan, the law will treat it as a loan—and all the consequences that follow such a determination,” says Christopher K. Odinet, an associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.

BE CAREFUL ABOUT YOUR COLLECTION POLICIES

Obviously companies want to collect their payments. But some funders are too quick to file lawsuits, which could lead to unwanted trouble, says Paul A. Rianda, who heads a law firm in Irvine, Calif.

“THE BUSINESS MODEL OF SUE FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER CAN BE A PROBLEM”


“The business model of sue first, ask questions later can be a problem,” says Rianda, whose clients include merchant cash advance companies.

The concern is that when funders sue, merchants start talking to attorneys and that could open the MCA firm to other types of lawsuits. The more a funder sues, the more it increases media attention and invites examination by state regulators and others. “You invite class action lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny that you really don’t want. It’s a boomerang thing,” he says.

The issue is especially pertinent now as legislators grapple with how to handle the thorny issue of confessions of judgement, more popularly known as COJs. For instance, since the start of the year, New York courts and county clerks have become much more rigid in processing confessions of judgments.

Certainly, not all funders use COJs. Just recently, for instance, Greenbox Capital suspended the use of COJs indefinitely, in response to the heightened industrywide debate over their use. While there’s no all-encompassing directive to stop using COJs, experts say it is incumbent upon funders to ensure they are used in a responsible and proper manner, especially amid political and regulatory uncertainty.

Catherine Brennan
Catherine Brennan, Partner, Hudson Cook, LLP

For instance, it would be irresponsible and potentially actionable to execute on a COJ simply because the merchant doesn’t remit receivables the merchant cash advance company purchased because he didn’t generate receivables, says Catherine M. Brennan, a partner at the law firm Hudson Cook LLP in Hanover, Maryland.

To be lawful, the COJ has to be based on a breach of performance under the agreement. Fraud, for instance, is actionable. But simple failure to remit receivables because the business has failed is not, she says.

“Conflating those two things—breaches of repayment versus performance—leads to a world of hurt,” she says. “MCA transactions do not have repayment as a concept.”

In places like New York, where COJs are more controversial, funders have to be especially careful about using them properly, experts say. Even though COJs are still enforceable under New York law for the time being, funders should understand every county processes them a bit differently, says Zakharyayev of Empire Recovery Services. “If they have a preferred county for filing, they should ensure their COJs are not only compliant with state law, but also complies with local rules,” he says.

What’s more, funders should ensure their COJs are properly notarized under New York law, ensure party names and the amount confessed is accurate, and avoid blanket statements such as naming each and every county in New York as a possible venue for filing, he says.

While some funders have suggested changing their venue provisions to a COJ-friendly state if New York outlaws COJs, Zakharyayev says he recommend New York funders keep their venue in New York regardless since it would still be one of the most efficient states to enforce a judgment. “I’ve filed COJs outside of New York and, even without a COJ, New York is much more efficient in judgment enforcement as New York courts are less restrictive in allowing the judgment creditor to pursue the debtor’s assets,” he says.

BE CAREFUL WHEN RAISING THIRD-PARTY MONEY

Aside from their dealings with merchants, funders also have to be cautious when it comes to interactions with potential investors.

Some companies have ample balance sheets and don’t need money from third parties to fund their operations. But funders that decide for business purposes to solicit money from investors, have to be careful not to run afoul of SEC rules, says Nowak, the attorney with Pepper Hamilton.

“THESE RULES ARE UNFORGIVING. YOU CAN’T IGNORE THEM”


He recommends funders treat these fundraising efforts as if they are issuing securities and follow the rules accordingly. Otherwise they risk being the subject of an enforcement action where the SEC alleges they are raising money using unregulated securities. “You need to be very careful here because these rules are unforgiving. You can’t ignore them,” Nowak says.

TACKLE ACCOUNTING CHALLENGES

Accounting is another business challenge many funders face. Some have fancy customer relationship management systems, but the systems aren’t always set up to provide the detailed information the accounting department’s needs to effectively reconcile the firm’s books, says Yoel Wagschal, a certified public accountant in Monroe, New York, who represents a number of funders and serves as chief financial officer at Last Chance Funding, a merchant cash advance provider.

Ideally, a funder’s CRM and accounting systems should be integrated so both sales and accounting receive the relevant data without the need for either department to input duplicate data. The two systems need a way to get information from each other, without someone manually entering the data in both systems, which is inefficient and prone to error, Wagschal says.

DON’T SKIMP ON LEGAL SERVICES

Kimberly Raphaeli VP Legal Operations
Kimberly Raphaeli, VP Legal Operations, AMA Recovery Group

There’s no set standard for funders to follow when it comes to legal advice. Some funders have in-house counsel, some contract with external law firms and some don’t have attorneys at all, which, of course, can be a risky proposition.

Some funders use contracts they’ve poached from a reputable funder online or from a friend in the industry, says Kimberly M. Raphaeli, vice president of legal operations at Accord Business Funding in Houston, Texas. The trouble is what flies in one state may not be legal in another, she says.

Many contracts include things such as jury waivers and class-action waivers or COJs and depending on the state, the rules surrounding the enforcement of these types of clauses may be different. So it’s really important to know the nuances of the state you’re doing business in and even potentially the states where your merchants are located, she says.

“A FUNDER SHOULD NEVER SHY AWAY FROM PAYING A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY FOR LONG-TERM BUSINESS SECURITY”


Having dedicated legal staff is arguably better. But at the very least, funders should have an attorney on speed dial who can provide advice on contracts, compliance and other areas of their business. Even when a funder has in-house attorneys, Raphaeli says it’s a good idea to tap external counsel to review documents in situations where potential liability exists. Not only does this offer a second set of eyes, it can provide added peace of mind. “A funder should never shy away from paying a little bit of money for long-term business security,” Raphaeli says.

FOLLOW BEST PRACTICES

Stephen Denis Small Business Finance AssociationThe Small Business Finance Association, an advocacy group for the non-bank alternative financing industry, has developed a list of best practices for industry participants to follow. These encompass principles of transparency, responsibility, fairness and security.

“It’s a very competitive market and companies are trying to differentiate themselves. I think it’s important to make sure you’re following industry standards,” says Steve Denis, executive director of the association whose members include funders and lenders.

Funders also need to be mindful that best practices can change based on business and competitive realities, so it’s important for funders to review procedures periodically, says Raphaeli, of Accord Business Funding. Because the industry is fast-moving, a good rule of thumb might be for a funder to review the entire set of policies and procedures every 18 months. But more frequent review could be necessary if outside factors such as new case law or regulation demand it, she says.

“Periodically taking a look at your collections techniques, your default procedures, even your funding process down to your funding call – these are all critical components of having a successful MCA funder,” she says.

TAKE PAINS TO AVOID INDUCTION INTO THE PUBLIC HALL OF SHAME

While there is no shortage of unseemly news stories involving MCA, funders need to do their best to avoid negative press. This means being extra careful about the way they present themselves to businesses, at public speaking engagements, at conferences, industry trade shows, brokers and others, says Denis of the Small Business Finance Association.

newspaper headline

“AM I COMFORTABLE WITH THAT INFORMATION BEING ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER?”


Denis, a long-time Washington, D.C., resident, recommends funders invoke what he calls the “The Washington Post test,” though it applies broadly to any news outlet. Before sending an email, leaving a voicemail or saying anything publicly, funding company employees need to ask themselves: Am I comfortable with that information being on the front page of the paper? “I think our industry has a big problem with public relations right now,” he says. “The stigma is only as true as our industry allows it to be.”

Cerebro Capital’s Trick? Automating Compliance in a Loan Marketplace

October 29, 2018
Article by:

Cerebro CapitalCerebro Capital CEO Matthew Bjonerud spoke to AltFinanceDaily last week at Money 2020 in Las Vegas. He was standing at his booth in the “Startup” section of the conference’s Expo Hall.

Bjonerud and his team have created a marketplace for middle market loans, from $1 million to $100 million. And Bjonerud said that borrowers can anonymously search for lenders to determine which ones are the right fit for them.

 “We can show borrowers the lenders that can do the deals they want without telling the lenders that the borrowers are even looking, Bjonerud said. “It’s a great benefit [for borrowers] to using our platform.”

In addition to being a marketplace for middle market loans, the Baltimore, Maryland-based startup also simplifies the compliance process for lenders.

“Once loans are closed…we will automate the compliance,” Bjonerud said. “We’re the only ones who allow that to happen in the marketplace – where we will actually create the compliance certificates for the lenders based on automatically [using] financial statements and other elements.”

This compliance service is billed to the lender as a subscription fee. Otherwise, when a loan deal is closed via Cerebro Capital’s marketplace, it is the borrower, not the lender, that pays Cerebro Capital.

“We’re providing the borrower with better terms than they would otherwise get in the market,” Bjonerud said.

Three Men Indicted in $345 Million Consumer Debt Ponzi Scheme

September 26, 2018
Article by:

ArrestedOn September 19, a federal grand jury indicted three men on charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, identity theft and money laundering in connection with a $345 million ponzi scheme, tracing back to January 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Simultaneously, the SEC obtained a court order to shut down the ponzi scheme allegedly created by these men, Kevin B. Merrill, 53, Jay B. Ledford, 54, and Cameron Jezierski, 28. The SEC complaint alleged that these men attracted investors to their scheme by promising sizable profits from the purchase and resale of consumer debt portfolios. However, the defendants were allegedly fabricating documents and forging signatures in a complex scheme to entice investors and perpetuate the fraud.

The SEC complaint alleges that Merrill and Ledford stole at least $85 million from investors to maintain lavish lifestyles, spending millions of dollars on luxury items, including $10.2 million on at least 25 cars, $330,000 for a 7-carat diamond ring, $168,000 for a 23-carat diamond bracelet, millions of dollars on luxury homes, and $100,000 to a private fitness club.

According to a story from WBAL TV, a Baltimore-area NBC news affiliate, SEC employee Stephanie Avakian said that from one investor’s $500,000 investment, “Merrill allegedly used [it] for a $400,000 payment for a 2014 Bugatti sports car, made payments to prior investors and repaid $20,000 of his own credit card debt.”

According to the WBAL TV story, a related complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleges that the investors included small business owners, restaurateurs, construction contractors, retirees, doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, talent agents, professional athletes and financial advisers in Maryland, Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia, Las Vegas, Texas and elsewhere.

“Most of these investors are just learning that they have been victimized,” said U.S. Attorney Robert K. Hur. “The effects of this kind of fraud can be devastating. We urge anyone who thinks they may be a victim to contact the FBI at MerrillLedford@fbi.gov.”

If convicted on the criminal charges, Merrill and Ledford could face up to 262 years in prison and Jazierski could face up to 120 years in prison.

In Anticipation of Hurricane Florence, Funders Suspend ACH Debits

September 12, 2018
Article by:

McLean, VA-based Breakout Capital is proactively suspending ACH debits for customers based in the counties designated by FEMA’s Major Disaster Declaration, according to an announcement made earlier today. They will be continuing to monitor the situation so that they can respond accordingly.

Gainesville, FL-based Elevate Funding is also pausing debits preemptively, the company says, for active merchants in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. After the storm, merchants can call in to report their damage or business status, they say. “Being based in Florida, exposed to many storms over the years, allows Elevate to understand how a hurricane’s damage can vary within 50 miles out to a 200 miles. Each case and customer will present different issues over the next week and some out to months.”

Chicago-based Lendr, echoed a similar plan. Company CEO Tim Roach says, “We will suspend payments for the rest of September for any client that is affected by Hurricane Florence. Most clients will come back on a reduced payment schedule for a short period of time. In the past we have provided additional funding for clients in need to help get their business back on track due to these types of natural disasters.”

Ft. Lauderdale-based Fundzio has announced that ACH payments are being suspended for businesses in South Carolina and North Carolina on Monday, Sept 17th through Friday, Sept 21st.

A State of Emergency has already been declared in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington DC, Maryland, and Georgia. It is currently a Category 3 Hurricane.

Hurricane Florence