7 MCA Firms That Have Faced State or Federal Enforcement Actions

An enforcement headline against a funder is not a release of any particular balance. The action matters enormously. It rarely resembles the headline.

Owners facing collection often ask whether a public case against their funder cancels what they owe, and the answer runs through the caption, the parties, and whatever order the tribunal actually entered, rather than through the press coverage. Most owners learn of these cases from a headline forwarded by a friend. What follows identifies seven funders that have faced state or federal action, states what each proceeding decided as of the fall of 2026, and states what each decision means for the merchants who borrowed from that funder and no other. Rarely does a public order mention any particular merchant balance.

Yellowstone Capital and Its Network

The New York Attorney General announced in January 2025 a settlement with Yellowstone Capital stated at one billion dollars, following a 2024 action concerning loans allegedly disguised as merchant advances. The Attorney General announcement of the Yellowstone settlement describes a consent order and judgment entered on January 16, 2025, with covered balances cancelled and judgments vacated in batches through December 2025.

Relief reaches only covered Yellowstone obligations and covered parties, a class extremely narrow by design, and the monetary claims process closed on January 9, 2026 with payments mailed to qualifying claimants in April 2026. The headline figure is outlandish until the implementation terms narrow it to covered accounts. Resist the urge to stop paying on the assumption of inclusion.

Delta Bridge Funding, Also Known as Cloudfund

The same Office of the Attorney General action continues against nonsettling parties including Delta Bridge Funding, also known as Cloudfund, which the Office alleges took over the Yellowstone business. The Attorney General implementation page for the Yellowstone matter states that the lawsuit against these parties is ongoing and that the Office has settled with none of them.

Allegations in a pending slice are not findings, and the denial of a motion to dismiss in March 2026 decided only that the claims may proceed. The petition alleges the business reemerged under new names in order to continue the same operation beyond the settlement, which remains an allegation until a tribunal says otherwise. A merchant whose balance sits with one of these entities holds no cancellation and faces a posture counsel must assess on the current docket.

Par Funding and Complete Business Solutions Group

Complete Business Solutions Group, doing business as Par Funding, entered a corporate guilty plea in March 2026 before a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to conspiracy charges arising from a scheme that defrauded investors, with the plea entered by the appointed receiver. The stated fraud loss ran into the hundreds of millions, and the individual principals received substantial prison terms.

The disposition concerned investor fraud, not merchant balances. Receivership and a criminal plea do not cancel merchant accounts by operation of law, and any merchant recovery runs through the receiver process on the records of the specific account. The receiver letter of August 2020, if we are being precise, asserted that merchant obligations remained estate assets. Merchant recoveries through receivership are extremely slow and rarely complete. Any communication with the receiver about ability to pay, even casually, can alter the posture of the account.

RCG Advances, Formerly Richmond Capital Group

The Federal Trade Commission pursued RCG Advances, formerly Richmond Capital Group and doing business as Viceroy Capital Funding, in the Southern District of New York. The Commission case page for the RCG Advances matter records a final judgment in February 2024 with monetary relief and permanent prohibitions barring an individual defendant from the merchant advance and debt collection industries.

The order binds its respondents and parties. This is history rather than advantage for any unrelated file. Most funders know exactly what these orders contain. They prefer their borrowers never read them.

RAM Capital Funding and Its Owner

The Commission settled charges against RAM Capital Funding and its owner with an order permanently barring them from the merchant advance and debt collection industries. The Commission announcement of the RAM Capital order describes charges of deceptive and unlawful seizures from small businesses.

The ban is history for most current files. It binds its respondents, and its value lies in what it demonstrates about collection conduct the law punishes. That order sits in the file the way a weather report sits in a voyage log: consulted, noted, and incapable of steering the ship.

1 Global Capital of Hallandale Beach

1 Global Capital of Hallandale Beach, Florida operated what the Department of Justice describes as the equivalent of payday lending to small businesses under the merchant advance label. The Justice Department case page for 1 Global Capital records criminal cases in the Southern District of Florida against executives and associated attorneys, and notes bankruptcy in July 2018 after raising money from more than 3,600 investors.

The criminal dispositions punished fraud against investors and decided nothing about any individual merchant agreement. An owner who borrowed from 1 Global needs the bankruptcy docket and the account records. The sentencing headlines will not answer the question, and counsel should review and evaluate both sets of records before advising that any balance is resolved.

Each order binds its parties. None of them binds the industry.

Biz2Credit and Its Subsidiary Itria Ventures

The Commission brought a March 2024 action concerning a subsidiary of the small business lending platform Biz2Credit that addressed advertising and processing of federal pandemic era loans rather than merchant advance terms. A funder can face enforcement over one product while its other products continue under their existing contracts.

But the lesson has limits. The action created no merchant advance debt cancellation, and an owner borrowing from a platform should keep each product in its own frame. Simply separate the product named in the order from the product named in the agreement before drawing any conclusion (other investigations, if any exist, remain nonpublic by nature).

Delancey Street offers a free confidential initial review for businesses carrying balances with any funder named here, and it coordinates legal questions with licensed counsel on a separate engagement. It is a debt settlement company, not a law firm, so questions of inclusion and release belong with counsel. The owner should ensure the file identifies and confirms the actual creditor and ensure no payment is directed to an entity whose authority remains unverified. Steps the owner takes, or does not take, after learning of an order shape the negotiation more than the order itself.

Relief arrives by account number.