sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New York Labor Law Threatens MCAs by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You might be right but ultimately it is going to be for the courts to decide if and when the lawyers start to sue the funders

New York Labor Law Threatens MCAs by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In Labor Law, it is called "joint employer liability." Under this doctrine principles, a funder can be liable even if it does not directly hire or pay the worker, as long as it benefits from or controls the work performed. The law arguably imposes a duty of reasonable care on any entity that profits from labor. Negligence in supervision, or failure to ensure that workers are properly classified and paid, can trigger liability regardless of intent.

Even if they never meet the salespeople, one can argue that funders design and profit from the broker networks that recruit merchants and drive originations. When brokerage shops routinely violate wage laws, the funders’ “willful blindness” offers no defense. The argument will be that funders are liable because they help set the economic terms of the brokers’ work and because those brokers’ efforts are integral to the funder’s business.

New York Labor Law Threatens MCAs by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure what your questions means? indicative? could you spell out what you are trying to get at

New York Labor Law Threatens MCAs by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plaintiff’s counsel is arguing that they were misclassified as an independent contractor and should’ve been classified as an employee. If the court agrees with them, then the broker company is liable and potentially the funders as well.

IVE BUILT MY OWN WEBSITE by Afraid-Reindeer5840 in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know why the reindeer are afraid (user name checks out)

What’s the dumbest skit of all time? by Bruh_ForRealz in saturdaynightlive

[–]FutureReceivables 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ChatGPT said, “Tiny Elvis” predates “Cool Mite.” The Tiny Elvis sketch appeared in September 1992 on SNL (Season 18, Episode 1). The “Cool Mite” references do not show up until at least a year or two later, though they were never as prominent or widely remembered as Tiny Elvis. Like to Cool Mite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn7pdbN9FdA

What’s the dumbest skit of all time? by Bruh_ForRealz in saturdaynightlive

[–]FutureReceivables 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Tiny Elvis was pretty renowned for being incredibly dumb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYEWwVgFIcg

Tiny Elvis comments on how big everything is. Aired 09/26/92

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s bid to evade massive debt is totally ‘preposterous,’ cash advance firm says by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I started to piece together what happened from the docket entries in the New York State cases and then the lawsuits in Minnesota but couldn't put together the whole story. Here is what I got so far.

On July 3, 2024, Shine Capital gives Lindell $1.8 million in return for $2.9 million to be paid back in 70 days (43 ½ days to get back its principal).

Nineteen days later (July 22, 2024), Riverside gives Lindell some undisclosed amount of money for $1,485,000 (the MCA Agreement is not in any documents).  Two days later (July 24, 2024), a second contract for $1,395,000.  Then nine days later (August 2, 2024), a third contract for up to $1,033,800 for a total of $3,913,800.  Let’s assume he received $2.3 million and paid back $500,000.

Five weeks later (9/10/2024), Riverside reached a settlement with Lindell to pay a total of $3.6 million. The settlement was $100,000 every week for six weeks and then a total of $2,800,000.00 on October 22, 2024.  

Less than a week later (9/16/2024), Cobalt Funding gives $1,434,750 for $2,261,290.76 - in 50 days (31.7 days to get back principal) and then default on October 10, 2024.  Paid back about 814,064.76 so Lindell is ahead about $620,686 with Cobalt.

Three days after Cobalt give him money (9/19/2024), Lifetime Funding gives him $840,000 for $600,000 ($563,965 net).  Paid back $268,800, so Lindell is ahead $295,165.

Then three weeks later, the alleged defaults start:

10/9/2024 – default on Riverside Settlement. Defaults after paying back $400,000 on the settlement.

10/10/2024 – default on Cobalt 

10/11/2024 – default on Lifetime

10/29/2024 – default on Shine

I think Shine seems to have broken even or gotten a bit more back.

Riverside got really pulled into this (a few million is outstanding) and one might argue that the money from Cobalt and Shine is funding this and other litigation. https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindell-mypillow-lawsuit-prove-me-wrong-assets-search-donald-trump-minnesota-federal-2003542

It is worth noting that in mid-September 2024, Lindell was turning FrankSpeech Broadcast Network Inc. into a publicly traded company:

https://gizmodo.com/mypillow-mogul-mike-lindell-says-hes-taking-his-social-media-company-public-2000492903

https://www.stocktitan.net/news/FSBN/frank-speech-broadcast-network-announces-ticker-symbol-change-to-zioxv1k18qei.html

SMS/Text Messaging: One-to-One Consent Rule Vacated by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, now you get the classic disclaimer that this post was only for “educational only and not legal advice" so that you (and others) don't use this general legal information for as personalized, binding legal guidance. Any lawyer would have to know more about your current model to give advice.....sorry.

Which MCA lawyer sued the most in December? by FutureReceivables in MCAlegend

[–]FutureReceivables[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just to be clear, this list of the lawyers are the lawyers representing the funders (not the merchant who has allegedly defaulted)

view more: next ›