Originally published June 24, 2025 in ABF Journal.  The Problem with Online MCA Debt Relief Promises When distressed business owners search online for merchant cash advance help, they’re often met with promises of fast relief and massive payment reductions. But for borrowers, lenders, and restructuring professionals alike, those promises come with a cost—and in many cases, catastrophic risk. Understanding the risks behind these promises is the first step toward identifying real solutions. This article exposes the most common MCA debt relief schemes—including so-called ‘80% reduction programs,’ ‘stall and save’ strategies, and reverse consolidations—and explains how real restructuring works to resolve debt while protecting operations, preserving cash flow, and restoring a path to conventional funding. How MCAs Undermine Secured Lending and Lending Relationships For lenders, the threat is especially urgent. MCA providers are often referred to as MCA ‘lenders’ despite the fact that their products are not loans. As such, MCAs bypass traditional underwriting standards, do not observe perfected lien positions, have direct access to operating accounts and favor collections actions which interfere with business receivables—often undermining the very collateral that supports secured loans. They do not adhere to intercreditor agreements, creating chaos in an otherwise orderly system. “Time after time, we see solid companies looking for financing because of a growth opportunity and find that they have already taken MCA money under the pretense that it was a legitimate  bridge loan and are now over-leveraged and unfinanceable,” says Haze Walker, Lawrence Financial. Merchant Cash Advances are a Barrier to Conventional Funding Despite often being marketed as a temporary solution, merchant cash advances are not a bridge to conventional financing. They are, in fact, a barrier to it—rapidly overleveraging businesses, degrading cash flow, and triggering systemic breakdowns in lending relationships. And with MCAs embedded in the capital stack, the damage compounds: refinancing becomes all but impossible, senior lender collateral is increasingly exposed, and borrowers become more desperate for a way out. It’s in this environment of urgency and confusion that a second threat emerges—predatory MCA debt relief schemes that promise resolution but often deliver more chaos. “In the event of default, or even prior to default if payments to the MCA cease, both legal and illegal collection efforts that an MCA will engage in are epic enough to make a loan shark proud.” — Ben Nicholson, Fortis Business Advisors, in Journal of Corporate Renewal. This climate of intimidation and urgency has created fertile ground for debt relief models that are every bit as predatory and structurally flawed as the MCA products they claim to replace. The “80% Payment Reduction” Pitch: A Risky Bet in MCA Restructuring A newer trend in the MCA debt settlement market promotes massive payment reductions—up to 80%—through aggressive negotiation with MCA lenders. And in some cases, this may be partially effective: some MCAs might agree to modified payment terms. But here’s what’s not mentioned. These firms rely on every MCA lender agreeing to revised terms. That’s rarely the case in reality. If even one refuses, default will almost certainly trigger a UCC 9-406 notice—a devastating collection action that diverts a business’s receivables directly to the MCA lender. “Citing Section 9-406 of the UCC, [the secured party] also notified [the account debtor] that payments made to any party other than [the secured party] would not discharge [the account debtor’s] obligations and liabilities with respect to its accounts receivable.” — Hodgson Russ LLP. In plain English: a UCC 9-406 notice tells customers they now owe the business’s revenue to the MCA—not the business itself. Lacking legal clarity, most UCC 9-406 recipients will simply stop paying until the matter is legally resolved. But for the business, that’s time it can’t afford—as cash flow dries up, and it can no longer make payroll, pay rent, or service vendors.A ‘relief’ model that relies on universal cooperation among MCA lenders is a recipe for disaster. If payment relief is the goal, it must be paired with a structural strategy that protects the business—its receivables, its operating accounts, and its ability to function—even if one or more MCAs refuse to negotiate. Reduced payment terms may help—but they cannot be the only strategy. The “Stall and Save” Strategy: Delay Masquerading as Merchant Cash Advance Help This is the model that mirrors the playbook of traditional consumer debt settlement. It instructs business owners to stop paying their MCA lenders entirely and instead save toward a lump-sum settlement offer. The firm charges hefty upfront fees and begins diverting payments into a so-called “settlement fund”—but controls that account. Here’s what typically ha