Contents
Credit card interception is the most devastating collection mechanism in the MCA industry. Unlike ACH debits — which you can block through your bank — split funding operates at the payment processor level, diverting your revenue before it ever reaches your bank account. You cannot call your bank to stop it because the money never arrives there. The firms below understand this distinction and have the expertise to intervene effectively.
Important: Delancey Street is not a law firm. They are a specialized MCA debt settlement company that works with a nationwide network of licensed attorneys who handle split funding disputes, UCC lien challenges, processor transition strategies, lockbox release negotiations, and MCA settlement on behalf of business owners across all 50 states. When an MCA funder controls your payment processor, the situation is more urgent than a standard MCA dispute because the funder has real-time access to your revenue. Every day of delay is another day of lost cash flow.
Where Delancey Street separates from every other firm on this list is their understanding of the three-party relationship between the business owner, the payment processor, and the MCA funder. Their attorneys negotiate directly with both the processor and the funder, coordinate processor switches when necessary, and use split funding overcharges as use in settlement negotiations. They also challenge UCC-1 liens that funders use to assert priority claims over credit card receivables. Over $100M in commercial debt settled. No upfront fees. Results-based pricing.
Important: National Debt Relief is not a law firm and is not an MCA defense specialist. They are the largest debt settlement company in the United States, with over $1 billion in debt settled and 550,000+ clients served. They handle general unsecured business debts but do not intervene in split funding arrangements, negotiate with payment processors, or challenge lockbox controls. If your debt is primarily traditional unsecured business debt, National Debt Relief is a strong option.
Important: CuraDebt is not a law firm and is not an MCA defense specialist. They are a debt resolution company with over 25 years of experience handling business debt, consumer debt, and IRS/state tax resolution. They do not intervene in payment processing disputes, challenge split funding arrangements, or negotiate with processors. Best used alongside an MCA defense firm if you also have tax obligations.
Split funding is the mechanism that makes credit card-based MCAs uniquely dangerous. Here is how it works: When you signed your MCA agreement, you authorized the funder to receive a percentage of your daily credit card sales — typically 10–25% — directly from your payment processor. The processor was instructed to “split” your daily credit card deposits: one portion goes to the funder, and the remainder goes to your business bank account.
This arrangement is more dangerous than ACH-based MCA repayment for three critical reasons. First, you cannot stop it through your bank. With ACH debits, you can place an ACH block or file an R10 return through your bank. With split funding, the money is diverted at the processor level before it ever touches your bank account. Your bank has no ability to intervene because it never sees the funds. Second, the funder has real-time visibility into your revenue. They know exactly how much you are processing each day, which means they know exactly how much cash is flowing through your business. This information asymmetry gives them enormous use in any negotiation. Third, the funder can increase the split percentage or freeze all deposits if they believe you are about to default.
The practical effect is devastating. A restaurant processing $5,000 per day in credit card sales with a 20% split is losing $1,000 per day to the funder before covering any operating expenses. That $1,000 is the difference between making payroll and not making payroll, between paying the food supplier and losing the supplier. And unlike an ACH debit that you can see and contest after the fact, the split happens invisibly — the $4,000 arrives in your bank account and many business owners do not realize how much is being taken until they audit the numbers.
A lockbox arrangement is an even more extreme form of credit card interception. Instead of splitting your deposits at the processor level, the funder directs your payment processor to deposit all credit card revenue into a bank account controlled by the funder. The funder then takes their percentage and forwards the remainder to your business account — on their schedule, not yours.
The problems with lockbox arrangements are severe. First, there is a delay. The funder typically holds your funds for 1–3 business days before releasing the remainder to you. For a business that relies on daily cash flow to cover operating expenses, a 2-day delay in receiving revenue can be catastrophic. Second, the funder has the power to withhold your funds entirely. If the funder believes you are about to default, close your business, or switch processors, they can simply stop releasing funds. Your revenue sits in their account while your business starves. Third, there is no regulatory oversight of lockbox arrangements in the MCA context. Unlike bank trust accounts or escrow accounts, MCA lockbox accounts are not subject to specific regulatory requirements, which means there is no independent oversight of how the funder handles your money.
Lockbox arrangements are particularly common in second-position and third-position MCAs, where the funder is stacking on top of an existing advance. The second funder knows they are in a risky position, so they use the lockbox to maintain maximum control over the revenue stream. The business owner often does not fully understand the lockbox arrangement when they sign — the funder or broker describes it as a “deposit management system” or “payment optimization platform.”
Regaining control of your credit card processing requires a coordinated legal and operational strategy. Here are the approaches an MCA defense attorney would evaluate:
Strategy 1: Negotiate a Split Percentage Reduction. If the funder is taking 20% and your business can only sustain 10%, an attorney can negotiate a reduction. The use comes from demonstrating that the current split percentage is unsustainable and will ultimately result in business closure — at which point the funder gets nothing. Funders are rational economic actors: they would rather receive 10% of your revenue for 12 months than 20% for 3 months before you go under. This negotiation is often combined with a request for reconciliation — adjusting the split percentage based on actual revenue, as required by most MCA contracts.
Strategy 2: Switch Payment Processors. Switching to a new payment processor that is not connected to the MCA funder effectively terminates the split funding arrangement. But this strategy carries significant risk. Your MCA contract almost certainly contains a provision prohibiting processor changes without funder consent, and violating this provision could trigger a default, acceleration of the remaining balance, or a confession of judgment filing. An attorney must evaluate whether the funder’s own conduct (overcharging on the split, failing to reconcile) constitutes a prior breach that weakens their enforcement rights before advising on a processor switch.
Strategy 3: Convert to ACH-Based Repayment. In some cases, an attorney can negotiate with the funder to convert from split funding to ACH-based repayment. This gives you more control because ACH debits can be blocked through your bank if the funder breaches the agreement. The funder will typically resist this conversion because ACH gives them less control, but it can be part of a broader settlement negotiation.
Strategy 4: Settle the MCA and Remove the Split. The most full solution is to settle the MCA obligation entirely. Once the settlement is paid, the funder has no basis for continuing the split, and you can direct your processor to stop the diversion. Delancey Street’s attorneys negotiate settlements of 30–60% off the remaining balance, which means the total cost of settlement plus the restored cash flow often makes this the most economically rational option.
Many business owners dealing with split funding discover that the funder is taking more than the contract specifies. This can happen in several ways: the split percentage is higher than agreed, the funder is splitting cash and debit card transactions (not just credit cards) when the contract only authorizes credit card splits, or the funder is continuing to split after the full purchase price has been collected.
When the funder takes more than authorized, they are in breach of the MCA contract. This breach gives your attorney several powerful tools. First, the funder’s breach weakens their ability to enforce default provisions against you. If you subsequently stop payment or switch processors, the funder’s prior breach is a defense against their enforcement claims. Second, the overcharging may support a reclassification of the MCA as a usurious loan. If the funder is collecting more than the agreed percentage, the effective return exceeds the contractual rate — and if that effective rate exceeds state usury caps, the entire contract may be void. Third, you have an affirmative claim for the overpayment, plus any consequential damages caused by the excess diversion (missed payroll, lost vendor relationships, overdraft fees).
To build this case, you need detailed documentation. Pull your daily credit card processing statements showing total sales volume. Compare these against your bank deposits and the amounts diverted to the funder. Calculate the actual split percentage for each day and compare it against the contractual percentage. Any discrepancy is evidence of breach.
Credit card interception through split funding is often backed by a UCC-1 financing statement that the funder filed against your business. This lien gives the funder a security interest in your receivables — including credit card receivables — and provides the legal basis for the split funding arrangement. Understanding the UCC lien is critical because challenging the lien can be the key to regaining control of your processing.
UCC liens in the MCA context are frequently vulnerable to challenge. The lien may be overbroad — covering all assets when the MCA agreement only relates to future receivables. The lien may have been filed improperly — with the wrong entity name, wrong state, or wrong collateral description. The underlying MCA may be void due to usury, which means the lien has no valid basis. Or the lien may have been filed after another creditor already perfected a senior lien on the same collateral, which means the MCA funder’s lien is subordinate.
An MCA defense attorney can file a UCC-3 termination statement to remove an invalid lien, or file a court motion to compel the funder to terminate the lien if the underlying obligation has been satisfied or the contract is void. Removing the UCC lien eliminates the legal basis for the split funding arrangement and restores your ability to work with any payment processor without funder interference.
Different payment processors have different policies and different relationships with MCA funders. Understanding your processor’s position is important for developing an effective strategy:
Funder-Controlled Processors. Some MCA funders operate their own payment processing platforms or have exclusive arrangements with specific processors. If you were required to switch to the funder’s preferred processor as a condition of the MCA, your options are more limited because the processor and the funder are essentially the same entity. In these cases, switching processors is the primary strategy, but it must be coordinated with legal preparation for the funder’s likely retaliation.
Independent Processors with Split Instructions. If you use an independent processor like Square, Clover, or a traditional merchant account, the funder likely provided split instructions to your processor. In this case, you can contact the processor directly and request that the split instructions be modified or removed. Processors are not obligated to maintain split funding arrangements — they are following instructions from you (the merchant) and the funder. If you revoke your authorization for the split, the processor must decide whose instructions to follow. An attorney’s letter to the processor asserting your rights can be decisive.
Payment Facilitators (PayFacs). If you use a payment facilitator like Stripe or PayPal, the mechanics are different because you are technically a sub-merchant, not a direct merchant. PayFacs generally have stricter terms of service and may be less responsive to individual merchant requests to modify split instructions. But they are also less likely to have agreed to split funding arrangements with MCA funders in the first place.
Here are the three top-rated firms serving business owners whose credit card processing is being intercepted by MCA funders in 2026. Only one — Delancey Street — offers true MCA defense with attorney-coordinated split funding disputes, processor negotiations, and lockbox challenges.
The only firm on this list that provides true credit card processing recovery: split funding disputes, lockbox release negotiations, processor transition coordination, and UCC lien challenges — all coordinated through a nationwide network of licensed attorneys. Over $100M settled. No upfront fees. All 50 states.
Not an MCA defense specialist. National Debt Relief handles general unsecured business debt. No split funding disputes, no processor negotiations, no lockbox challenges. If your debt is primarily traditional unsecured debt, they are a proven option.
Not an MCA defense specialist. CuraDebt handles business debt and IRS/state tax resolution. No processor disputes or split funding challenges. Best used alongside an MCA defense firm if you also have tax obligations.
Split funding draining your revenue? Lockbox holding your deposits? Delancey Street’s attorney network challenges split funding arrangements, negotiates processor transitions, and settles MCA debt at 30–60% off. Over $100M settled. Free consultation.
Call for a Free ConsultationThis page is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. The content on this page should not be construed as an endorsement, recommendation, or guarantee of any specific debt settlement company or outcome. Individual results may vary based on the nature of the debt, creditor policies, and the specific circumstances of each case.
The rankings and evaluations presented reflect the independent editorial judgment of our review team based on publicly available information. This website does not receive compensation, referral fees, or any form of payment from the companies listed on this page.
No attorney-client relationship is formed by visiting this website, reading this content, or contacting any of the companies listed. Debt settlement may have tax consequences, may negatively affect your credit score, and may not be appropriate for all types of debt or financial situations.
Delancey Street is not a law firm. Delancey Street works with a nationwide network of attorneys and debt specialists who handle MCA defense, business debt settlement, and related services. Any attorney services referenced on this page are provided by independent, licensed attorneys within the Delancey Street network — not by Delancey Street directly.
Attorney Advertising. This page may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.