Search Results CFG Merchant Solutions

CFG MERCHANT SOLUTIONS
This is a search result page

CFG Merchant Solutions is a Sponsor of AltFinanceDaily CONNECT – San Diego

October 1, 2018

CFG Merchant Solutions is a sponsor of AltFinanceDaily CONNECT San Diego. The half-day event for funders, lenders, brokers and industry professionals is being held at the Andaz on October 4th!

i2B Capital Provides $4 Million Revolving Line of Credit to CFG Merchant Solutions

November 8, 2016

Article by: Press Release

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–i2B Capital (www.i2bcap.com), a provider of direct financing to niche-market financial entrepreneurs, is pleased to announce the closing of a $4 million asset-based revolving line of credit with an accordion to $6 million with CFG Merchant Solutions (CFGMS). CFGMS is a privately owned and operated specialty finance company focused on providing working capital to small and mid-sized businesses (Merchants) in the U.S. that are historically underserved by traditional financial institutions.

Said Mr. Larry L. Curran II, CEO of i2B Capital, “CFGMS gave us the perfect opportunity to apply asset-based lending principals to non-traditional receivable assets in an early stage specialty finance company. CFGMS is a new division of an established finance business with traditional bank financing; however, these receivable assets were excluded from the existing borrowing base. The CFGMS management team is seasoned, backed by private equity, and enabled with technology—exactly what we look for in our target customer. Additionally, they have grown their financed receivables more than 500% since beginning the process.”

Barbara Anderson, Chief Operating Officer at i2B Capital commented, “Our goal over the initial 18-month funding commitment is to prepare CFGMS for more traditional institutional financing in the future. To accomplish that we will provide the growth capital along with our commercial lending expertise to help them prepare for the disciplined reporting requirements and credit processes at the next level.”

William Gallagher, President of CFGMS said, “Obtaining an asset-based loan against our non-traditional asset class within our first year of operation is instrumental in allowing us to execute on our growth strategy, and achieve some very aggressive portfolio and revenue targets. We had to work through several considerations with i2B due to the age and size of the portfolio, but through mutual collaboration we were able to put in place a facility that will enable us to take our business to the next level.”

CFGMS is a subsidiary of CapFlow Funding Group, a commercial finance company that offers an array of products such as factoring, purchase order finance, and asset-based loans. Both companies are headquartered in Rutherford, New Jersey. CFGMS with additional offices in New York City is a direct funder providing working capital to small businesses. They are entrepreneurs who understand first-hand the challenges of acquiring flexible and timely financing. CFGMS combines proprietary analytics and technology, with common sense underwriting to provide fast and efficient access to capital. Programs include Small Business Advance, Merchant Cash Advance, and Invoice Factoring. For more information about CFGMS contact William Gallagher at wgallagher@cfgms.com or visit www.cfgmerchantsolutions.com.

i2B Capital is headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado with offices in Herndon, Virginia. The company provides senior debt and direct asset investments for growth capital to qualifying entrepreneurs and equity-backed emerging specialty finance companies throughout the United States. For more information about i2B Capital contact Barbara Anderson at 703-871-3993 or banderson@i2bcap.com, or visit www.i2bcap.com.

Contacts
i2B Capital
Barbara Anderson, 703-871-3993
banderson@i2bcap.com

Funders Comply With New Texas MCA Law

September 2, 2025

Article by: deBanked Staff

As Texas implements the prohibition on ACH debits made by sales-based financing providers, here’s a working list of how funders are acting to comply:

Bitty: offering fixed-term installment loan. (see announcement)

CFG Merchant Solutions: offering fixed-term installment loan. (see announcement)

Merit Business Funding: Exempt from the law due to being a subsidiary of Meridian Bank. (See announcement)

Spartan Capital: offering fixed-term installment loan. (See announcement)

LCF Group: offering small business loans. (See announcement)

Backd Business Funding: offering term loans through their partnership with FinWise Bank.

If you are a sales-based or revenue-based financing provider that is continuing to fund in Texas and would like to be added here, email sean@debanked.com

Dodd-Frank 1071: Regulatory Uncertainty in Small Business Financing

May 28, 2025

Article by: Jeffrey S. Paige

Jeffrey S. Paige is the Chief Legal Officer of CFG Merchant Solutions. Visit: https://cfgmerchantsolutions.com

A Changing Regulatory Landscape for Commercial Finance in New York & Beyond

When President Trump returned to office on January 20, 2025, he signed several executive orders with significant implications, particularly for New York’s commercial finance sector and the revenue-based financing industry. One such order was a regulatory freeze that could impact rules issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), specifically those concerning small business financing data collection under Dodd-Frank Section 1071. The rationale behind this freeze is that the CFPB, an agency not directly controlled by Congress, exceeded its intended regulatory scope.

Trump’s order not only halts the issuance of new rules but also mandates the withdrawal of any rules previously sent to the Office of the Federal Register. More critically, it directs agency heads to “consider postponing” any rules that have been published but have not yet taken effect, creating a 60-day review period for reassessment of their legal and policy implications.

“Should actions be identified that were undertaken before noon on January 20, 2025, that frustrate the purpose underlying this memorandum, I may modify or extend this memorandum to require that department and agency heads consider taking steps to address those actions,” the order concludes. This places Section 1071 in limbo, leaving financial institutions uncertain about compliance obligations moving forward.

However, New York funders may still need to prepare. Under 12 U.S.C. § 5552 of the Dodd-Frank Act, individual states (including their respective financial regulators and attorneys general) have the authority to enforce federal consumer financial law, specifically, the Consumer Financial Protection Act and 18 enumerated consumer laws such as TILA, EFTA, FDCPA, GLBA, and regulations issued by the CFPB. Simply put, New York has the ability to enforce these laws and regulations, including Section 1071, by bringing suit in federal or state courts or other appropriate proceedings against any “covered person or service provider” as defined and not excluded by the Dodd-Frank Act’s terms. It is therefore prudent for non-exempt lenders and funders to take a proactive approach.

What Is Dodd-Frank 1071?

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, enacted in 2010, sought to address vulnerabilities in the financial system exposed during the 2008 financial crisis. On March 30, 2023, Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), empowering the CFPB to collect and report key data from financial institutions on small business financing. The compliance deadline varies based on the size of the institution, with the earliest deadline set for July 18, 2025, affecting Tier 1 providers, defined as high-volume financial institutions.

The goal of Section 1071 is to identify and address disparities in small business financing by analyzing key metrics such as:

Demographics of business owners (race, gender, ethnicity).
Financing terms, rates, and credit outcomes.
Geographic data, including trends in underserved regions.

By requiring funders to disclose this information, the regulation seeks to foster accountability and ensure that small businesses—especially those owned by minorities and women—have equitable access to credit and capital.

CFPB & Section 1071 Timeline

2010: Dodd-Frank Act Enacted

Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is established.

2011: CFPB Established

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is created as an independent agency overseeing consumer financial protection laws, including small business lending regulations under Section 1071.

2017: CFPB Faces Legal Challenges

Industry groups challenge the CFPB’s authority and structure, arguing that it lacks proper congressional oversight.
Under the Trump administration, regulatory focus shifts toward deregulation, and CFPB rulemaking efforts on Section 1071 slowed down.

2020: U.S. Supreme Court Decision – Seila Law v. CFPB

The Supreme Court rules that the president can remove the CFPB director at will, weakening its independence but allowing it to continue functioning.

2021: Biden Administration Revives Section 1071 Rulemaking

The CFPB under Director Rohit Chopra prioritizes implementing Section 1071, aiming to enhance transparency in small business lending.

2022-2023: CFPB Proposes & Finalizes Section 1071 Rule

The proposed rule is released in 2022, requiring lenders to collect and report loan application data, including business owner demographics.
In March 2023, the final rule is issued, with compliance deadlines set for 2024 and 2025 based on lender size.

2023-2024: Legal Pushback & Court Challenges

Industry groups file lawsuits, arguing that Section 1071 creates excessive regulatory burdens and violates constitutional limits on CFPB authority
In October 2023, a Texas court stays the rule for certain plaintiffs, pausing enforcement for some lenders.
In 2024, additional lawsuits escalate concerns over the rule’s implementation.

January 20, 2025: Trump Returns to Office & Freezes Regulations

On his first day back in office, President Trump issues an executive order freezing pending regulations, including Section 1071.
The order:
- Blocks new CFPB rulemaking,
- Withdraws rules not yet finalized,
- Delays implementation of already published rules for a 60-day review period.
President Trump’s justification: The CFPB is an unelected agency that overstepped its authority, and its rules should be reassessed.

2025: Uncertainty & State-Level Action

The CFPB’s authority remains in question, leaving financial institutions uncertain about compliance requirements.
New York may independently implement similar reporting requirements, as it has done with previous commercial financing regulations.
Many New York funders continue preparing for potential state-level enforcement despite the federal freeze.

How Alternative Financing Providers Can Adapt

Funders in the alternative financing space should remain agile and prepare for multiple scenarios. Even if Section 1071 is rolled back, transparency and fair funding practices remain critical for fostering trust and maintaining credibility in the market.

Steps funders can take include:

Investing in technology to automate compliance processes, ensuring readiness for future regulations.
Engaging with industry stakeholders to advocate for practical regulatory approaches that balance fairness and business efficiency.
Maintaining transparency in financing practices to build stronger relationships with merchants and partners.

Looking Ahead

As the financial industry navigates the potential rollback of Dodd-Frank 1071 (Republican Congressman Roger Williams of Texas has introduced H.R. 976 seeking to do just that), alternative financing companies should focus on long-term strategies that prioritize both compliance and innovation. This is especially true in New York, where the legislature is currently considering a bill called the Fair Business Practices Act, modeled after Title X of Dodd-Frank, that would among other things expand the New York Attorney General’s enforcement powers and enhance penalties in this industry sector for UDAP violations. This further signals that New York as well as other states is seeking to fill any void left by the weakening of the CFPB. Whether the regulation remains in effect or is dismantled, financial institutions should stay proactive in adapting to changes while ensuring fair access to capital for small businesses.

Legal Complexities in the Revenue-Based Financing Industry: An Analysis of Recent Court Cases

January 6, 2025

Article by: Jeffrey S. Paige

Jeffrey S. Paige is the General Counsel of CFG Merchant Solutions. Visit: https://cfgmerchantsolutions.com

Navigating the intricate legal landscape of the revenue-based financing industry has become increasingly complex, with recent court cases providing profound insights into the sector’s regulatory dynamics. Amidst legislative shifts, litigation between funders and merchants, and public enforcement actions, three prominent court cases have recently emerged, each offering further guidance into the nuanced legal dynamics governing this innovative sector.

SBFA vs. DFPI: Constitutional Challenges to California’s Regulatory Framework

In the Small Business Finance Association (SBFA) vs. California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), 9th Cir., Case No. 24-50, SBFA challenged the constitutional validity and federal preemption of California’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law. Central to SBFA’s stance is the contention that the state’s regulatory framework infringes upon the First Amendment rights of its members. SBFA asserts that the regulations compel its members to disseminate inaccurate disclosures to customers, while simultaneously prohibiting any communication that could rectify or clarify purportedly misleading information. Furthermore, SBFA contends that California’s customized interpretation of the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) conflicts with the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), potentially causing confusion among merchants. The DFPI moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.

Updates and Nuances: Recent Ruling on SBFA vs. DFPI

On December 4, 2023, the trial level judge ruled in favor of the DFPI, granting their motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case.

First Amendment Argument: The judge disagreed with SBFA, concluding that the disclosures would help small businesses understand the costs and were neither misleading nor unduly burdensome.

Federal Preemption Argument: The judge deferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)‘s authority to resolve preemption issues. In March 2023, the CFPB ruled that the Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) does not conflict with TILA.

The SFBA has filed an appeal of the lower court’s grant of summary judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 28, 2024, SBFA filed their appellate brief setting forth the facts on the record on summary judgment and their specific legal arguments, emphasizing the reversible errors made by the district court, particularly regarding the false and misleading nature of the compelled disclosures, the controversy surrounding the use of APR metrics on products (like receivables-based funding transactions) that APR was not designed to properly describe, and the lack of justification for the regulations. The preemption argument is not being raised on appeal. Following this, on June 6, 2024, the Appellee DFPI’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the answering brief was granted. The answering brief of the DFPI is now due on August 30, 2024.

Given these developments, SBFA’s challenge continues to underscore significant constitutional, substantive, and procedural issues within California’s regulatory framework.

The People v. Richmond Capital Group: Uncovering Predatory Practices

In the case of The People v. Richmond Capital Group, 195 N.Y.S.3d 637 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023, unpublished slip copy), allegations of predatory practices have uncovered crucial legal considerations for revenue-based financing providers. Initially filed by the People in 2020, the court ultimately found for the People, holding that the Defendants in that case were “predatory lenders” making thinly disguised loans with usurious interest. The keys to this decision were the reconciliation duty (which was allegedly never performed by the Defendants despite the mandatory contract provisions and requirement that merchants submit bank statements to Defendants on a monthly basis), the fact that the transactions were explicitly based upon fixed repayment amounts with fixed repayment timeframes (as opposed to revenue based funding products, where remittance of the purchased receivables may vary in amount and duration along with the merchant’s revenue stream), contract provisions such as making a few missed payments or declaration of bankruptcy events of default (shifting the risk of loss off of the funder), and the fact that Defendants always referred to their products as loans, and not a bona fide purchase and sale of future receipts. The reprehensible conduct of certain Defendants who harassed, bullied, and made numerous fraudulent statements to their merchant customers certainly did not help their cause. In September 2023 and February 2024, the court issued further decisions addressing accounting and disgorgement of funds, but the core principles related to reconciliation and data remain the same. It’s unclear if Richmond Capital Group appealed any of these rulings.

U.S. Info Group, LLC v. EBF Holdings: Implications for ISO Behavior and Funder Accountability

2023 WL 6198803 (S.D.N.Y., 2003), a case out of the Southern District of New York involving New York law, involves allegations by a Plaintiff against a receivables-based funder similar to those in Richmond Capital, but with a very different set of facts, and a different outcome. U.S. Info Group attempted a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim against EBF Holdings, alleging that the receivables-based funding transaction at issue was a disguised usurious loan under New York law.

In September 2023, the court dismissed the case entirely on the funder’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The judge ruled that U.S. Info Group failed to adequately allege facts demonstrating a “RICO enterprise” or widespread fraud scheme involving EBF Holdings and their affiliates. In addition, the Court re-iterated the major hallmarks of a true purchase and sale receivables-based funding transaction: (i) that the contract contained a reconciliation provision (and that the funder actually preforms reconciliations where warranted such that the provision is not illusory); (ii) that the risk of non-performance due to bankruptcy or declined revenue of the merchant always rests with the funder; and (iii) that there is no finite, fixed repayment term, which would be typical of a loan.

Legal Recommendations for Funders

Funders should consult with knowledgeable and capable attorneys in this area of law to establish and effectuate clear provisions in their contracts along with steadfast adherence to their contract terms and best practices.
As for the DFPI and California’s disclosure requirements, they remain the law of the land unless the final, unappealable decision of a court states otherwise. Thus, funders should consult with their attorneys to ensure strict compliance with California’s disclosure law and regulations.

In conclusion, the recent legal battles involving the revenue-based financing industry underscore the need for continuous vigilance, genuine commitment to proper contract terms and best practices in servicing those contracts, and adaptation to emerging regulatory paradigms, in order to ensure sustainable growth and legal compliance within this dynamic sector.

Legal Risks: Penalties for Non-Compliance in Revenue-Based Financing

December 11, 2023

Article by: Jeffrey S. Paige

Jeffrey S. Paige is the General Counsel of CFG Merchant Solutions. Visit: https://cfgmerchantsolutions.com

Staying compliant with disclosure legislation and regulations is paramount for revenue-based financing funders and brokers alike. In states such as California, Virginia, Utah, New York, Georgia, Connecticut, and Florida, there are specific requirements to which commercial financing funders must adhere. Funders and brokers who fail to comply with these requirements could face significant legal and/or financial penalties. Funders and brokers are encouraged to consult their legal counsel to ensure full compliance with all laws and regulations of every state in which they transact business.

California Code of Regulations Title 10, Chapter 3 – California Financing Disclosure Law (Effective December 9, 2022):

Starting on December 9, 2022, commercial financing funders in California are required to provide clients with certain disclosures, including the controversial APR calculation. This became mandatory following the issuance of final regulations by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) on June 15th to implement the California Code of Regulations Title 10, Chapter 3. Violations of these disclosure requirements in California can lead to significant penalties, reaching up to $10,000 for willful violations, along with the possibility of imprisonment for licensees who commit violations. To maintain compliance and avoid penalties, consult with your counsel to ensure your disclosures are timely and set forth all required information, including but not limited to:

Total amount of funds provided
Total dollar cost of the financing
Term or estimated term
Payment details
Prepayment policies
Total cost of financing expressed as an annualized rate

Virginia HB1027 – Virginia Financing Disclosure Law (Effective July 1, 2022):

Virginia enacted HB1027, introducing disclosure and registration requirements for sales-based financing funders. Funders conducting business in Virginia are obligated to conform to these regulations, which include but are not limited to:

Registration: Funders and brokers in revenue-based financing must register with the State Corporation Commission and subsequently renew annually.
Disclosures: Disclosures for specific financing offers are mandatory, covering total financing amount, finance charges, total repayment amount, estimated payments, payment amounts, and applicable fees.
Virginia’s Distinction: Unlike California and New York, Virginia does not mandate the disclosure of an annual percentage rate (APR), focusing on the disclosure of the total cost of capital.

Non-compliance with Virginia HB1027, the Virginia Financing Disclosure Law, exposes businesses to substantial penalties. The law empowers the Virginia Attorney General to seek injunctions for violations, in addition to restitution payments, damages, and attorney’s fees for violations.

Utah SB183 – Utah Financing Disclosure Law (Effective January 1, 2023):

Engaging in a commercial financing transaction as a provider in Utah or with a Utah resident has become unlawful unless one is registered with the Utah Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). This registration, akin to California’s process, must be renewed annually through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS). Utah’s unique framework explicitly states that non-compliance does not affect the enforceability of transactions, nor do violations give rise to a private cause of action against the funder. However, civil penalties are not to be underestimated. Violators can face penalties of $500 per violation, not exceeding $20,000 for all violations. For repeat offenders, especially those who receive written notice of prior violations, penalties can escalate to $1,000 per violation, capped at $50,000. To ensure compliance with Utah SB 183 and avoid legal trouble, ensure proper and timely registration and annual renewal. Also, consult with counsel to prepare the required disclosures, which feature (but are not limited to) the total amount of funds provided, the total cost of financing, and any other pertinent material terms and associated costs as required by the regulations.

New York Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (August 1, 2023):

The New York Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) mandates standardized disclosures for unregulated financial institutions engaged in commercial financing transactions. Funders failing to comply may face civil penalties, with fines reaching up to $2,000 per violation or $10,000 for intentional violations. In addition, for knowing violations, the Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services can impose restitution payments and/or injunctive relief. Disclosures include, but are not limited to:

The total amount of funds provided
The total cost of financing (expressed as an annualized rate)
A description of the financing product
Other material terms and fees
The name and contact information of the funder
A statement that the borrower has the right to cancel the deal within three business days of receiving the disclosures
Timing: The disclosure must be given to the borrower when a specific commercial financing offer is made.
Any portion of the amount financed used to pay unpaid finance charges or fees (referred to in the legislation as “double dipping.”)

Funders should proactively integrate these disclosures to align with New York’s regulatory standards and foster a culture of accuracy and responsibility in commercial financing practices.

Georgia Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (Effective January 1, 2024):

Effective January 1, 2023, Georgia’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law mandates clear and detailed disclosures for commercial financing funders. The law amends Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act, applying specifically to providers of commercial loans and accounts receivable purchase transactions under $500,000. Transactions are defined as purchases of accounts receivable or payment intangibles, strategically avoiding loan classification, and notably, no licensing or registration requirements are imposed on funders. Funders failing to comply with these disclosure requirements face potential civil penalties, ranging from $500 to $20,000, with additional penalties for continued non-compliance after notice. Importantly, these penalties do not compromise the enforceability of the transactions, and it is noteworthy that the law does not grant a private right of action.

Disclosure Requirements:

Providers must disclose key terms: total funding amount, net funds disbursed, total payable, financing cost, payment schedule, and prepayment penalties.
Unlike California and New York, Georgia’s law does not mandate APR calculation.
The definition of “Providers” is consistent with Utah’s Commercial Financing Registration and Disclosure Act.
Covers those engaging in more than five commercial financing transactions in Georgia annually, including online platforms partnering with depository institutions.

Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (Effective July 1, 2023):

Effective from July 1, 2023, commercial financing funders in Florida are mandated to comply with the requirements of the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law.

Florida Law Disclosure Requirements:

Providers must disclose crucial financing terms.

Total funds provided.

The financing cost, utilizing a TILA-derived metric (unlike Connecticut’s law).

Payment schedule.

Prepayment penalties.

Disclosures must be provided “at or before consummation” of a qualifying commercial transaction.

Only one disclosure is necessary for each accounts receivable purchase facility.

No need for redisclosure in case of modifications or forbearance of a consummated facility under Florida law.

Non-compliance with these regulations can result in fines ranging from $500 per incident to an aggregate of $20,000, with possible aggregate penalties up to $50,000 for continued violations after receipt of notice. As with other states, transparency in financial dealings is paramount, and funders should stay updated on regulatory changes to ensure continuous compliance.

Connecticut Financing Disclosure Law (Effective July 1, 2024):

Connecticut sets a clear deadline for funders and brokers to register with the state banking commissioner by October 1, 2024. Additionally, the Connecticut Financing Disclosure law requires funders to disclose:

The total amount of the commercial financing.

The disbursement amount, which is the amount paid to the recipient or on the recipient’s behalf, excluding any finance charges that are deducted or withheld at disbursement.

The finance charges.

The total repayment amount, which is the disbursement amount plus the finance charge.

The estimated repayment period.

A payment schedule.

A description of fees not included in the finance charge such as draw fees, and late charges.

A description of any collateral requirements.

Information about brokerage compensation.

Any portion of the amount financed used to pay unpaid finance charges or fees as a calculation.

These regulations apply to entities providing commercial financing, and failure to comply can result in severe civil penalties of up to $100,000. The commissioner additionally holds the authority to enjoin those violating the statute. Understanding and fully complying with these requirements is crucial for funders and brokers that transact business in this state.

The Imperative of Adhering to Evolving Commercial Financing Disclosure Laws

The regulatory frameworks in California, Virginia, Utah, Georgia, New York, Florida, and Connecticut, coupled with impending regulations in other states, underscore a growing regulatory focus on transparency, customer protection, disclosure and equitable financial practices. With revenue-based financing facing heightened scrutiny, the strict compliance with these laws cannot be emphasized enough. Ensuring adherence is not just a best practice but a crucial necessity to avoid potential legal penalties and foster a financial ecosystem built on trust, integrity, and responsible funding practices.

Summer Dealmaking

July 18, 2023

Article by: deBanked Staff

The summer of 2023 has not disappointed. The industry is making moves! In case you missed what moves we’re talking about, here’s a list of the most notable:

7/17/23 – Nav Acquires Tillful

7/14/23 – IOU Financial announces it is being acquired

7/12/23 – Loanspark expands to Canada

7/10/23 – Owners Bank launches SMB loans

6/29/23 – Blue Bridge Financial extends and upsizes corporate note to $20M

6/15/23 – CFG Merchant Solutions surpassed $1B in MCA originations

6/13/23 – Merchant Growth acquires small business loan rights from Loop

All Registered Sales-based Financing Providers in Virginia (As of 3-29-23)

April 2, 2023

Article by: deBanked Staff

Is the revenue-based financing provider you do business with registered to operate in Virginia? On July 1, 2022, Virginia’s commercial financing disclosure law went into effect and with that the necessity to register one’s business. As of March 29, 2023, 101 companies had registered. This is the official list of registered sales-based financing providers as of that date (yellow means it has been added since our last update):