Best Companies to Help When an MCA Lender Filed a UCC Lien the Same Day They Funded You — 2026

Top Firms for Challenging Same-Day MCA UCC Filings — 2026

You need an attorney who knows UCC Article 9 perfection rules cold — the interaction between MCA contracts and security interests, and the specific grounds that make same-day blanket filings vulnerable. Here are the three best options in 2026.

Why MCA Funders File UCC Liens the Same Day They Fund You

Same-day UCC filing is not an accident. It is a deliberate strategy with three goals. First — grab first-priority position under UCC §9-322(a)(1). The first creditor to file wins. Second — block you from getting competing financing. Every lender who runs a lien search sees the MCA funder’s filing and backs off. Third — create an enforcement weapon. If you default, that perfected security interest gives them the right to seize collateral (though practical seizure still requires compliance with §9-609).

The MCA industry has turned this into a machine. Automated filing services submit UCC-1 forms to the Secretary of State within hours of wiring funds. Some funders file before the funds even leave their account — a practice called “pre-filing” that raises serious legal questions about authorization and whether the security interest is even valid.

And the breadth of these filings is no accident either. MCA funders file blanket liens covering “all assets” — not just the receivables the MCA supposedly covers. They grab everything: equipment, inventory, intellectual property, general intangibles. All of it. The goal is simple — maximum blocking power against competing lenders and maximum enforcement options if you default.

Ground 1: The UCC Lien Is Overbroad

Here is the contradiction. The MCA funder says they are “purchasing future receivables” — not making a secured loan. They claim to be buying a percentage of your future sales, not taking a security interest in your business assets. Yet the UCC-1 they filed covers “all assets” — equipment, inventory, intellectual property, real property interests, general intangibles. None of that is future receivables.

Under UCC §9-108, a collateral description must “reasonably identify” the collateral. An “all assets” description is generally valid under §9-108(c) — but the real question is whether the MCA agreement actually grants a security interest in all assets, or just in receivables. If the contract only covers receivables, the UCC-1’s “all assets” description exceeds the actual security interest. That makes the filing partially invalid.

Your attorney reviews the MCA contract, compares the security interest grant to the UCC-1 collateral description, and identifies the overbreadth. If the filing grabs assets beyond what the contract allows, a motion to amend or terminate the excess portions is on the table.

Ground 2: The Underlying MCA Is Void Due to Usury

This is the nuclear option — and it works. A UCC-1 financing statement perfects a security interest. But if no valid security interest exists, the filing means nothing. A security interest requires a valid underlying agreement. If the MCA contract is void because it is actually a usurious loan, then no valid agreement exists. No security interest was created. The UCC filing is worthless.

The usury analysis is the same as in any MCA defense: if the MCA imposes fixed daily payments with no genuine reconciliation provision (meaning payments don’t adjust based on actual sales), courts may reclassify it as a loan. If the effective APR exceeds the applicable usury cap — 25% for criminal usury in New York under Penal Law §190.40 — the contract is void. A void contract cannot support a security interest. A security interest without a valid contract cannot be perfected. A UCC filing without a valid security interest is subject to termination.

The Yellowstone Capital settlement is directly relevant here: the NY Attorney General required the cancellation of all UCC filings associated with the voided MCA contracts. This establishes the principle that UCC liens fall when the underlying MCA is invalidated.

Ground 3: Unauthorized Pre-Filing

Under UCC §9-509, a UCC-1 financing statement may only be filed with the debtor’s authorization. Authorization typically comes from the security agreement — when you sign the MCA contract that includes a security interest grant, you authorize the filing. But what if the funder filed the UCC-1 before you signed the security agreement?

Some MCA funders pre-file UCC liens as part of their underwriting process — filing the UCC-1 to establish priority while the borrower’s application is still being processed. If the filing date on the UCC-1 precedes the date you signed the MCA agreement, the filing may have been unauthorized at the time it was made. An unauthorized filing is not effective to perfect a security interest, regardless of whether authorization was subsequently granted.

To assess this ground, your attorney will compare: (1) the filing date on the UCC-1 (available from the Secretary of State’s office), (2) the execution date on your MCA contract, and (3) the date funds were disbursed. If the UCC-1 was filed before you signed, this is a strong challenge ground.

Ground 4: Debtor Name Errors

Under UCC §9-506, a UCC-1 financing statement is “seriously misleading” if it does not sufficiently provide the debtor’s correct name. A seriously misleading filing is ineffective. The test is whether a reasonably diligent search using the debtor’s correct legal name would discover the filing in the Secretary of State’s search logic.

MCA funders occasionally file UCC-1s with incorrect debtor names — misspellings, use of a DBA instead of the legal entity name, wrong entity type, or failure to update the name after a business name change. If the error is sufficient to make the filing undiscoverable in a standard search, the filing is ineffective and the security interest is unperfected. An unperfected security interest has no priority and is subordinate to all other creditors.

Ground 5: Wrong Jurisdiction Filing

Under UCC §9-301, a UCC-1 financing statement must be filed in the jurisdiction where the debtor is “located” — which for registered organizations (LLCs, corporations) means the state of organization, and for individuals means the state of principal residence. If the MCA funder filed the UCC-1 in the wrong state (for example, filing in the state where your business operates rather than the state where your LLC was formed), the filing is ineffective.

This ground is particularly relevant for businesses that operate in one state but are organized in another. An LLC formed in Delaware but operating in New York must have its UCC filings in Delaware. A funder who files in New York made an error that renders their security interest unperfected.

Top Firms for Challenging Same-Day MCA UCC Filings — 2026

Here are the three top-rated firms for business owners dealing with same-day MCA UCC filings. Only Delancey Street provides attorney-coordinated UCC lien challenges, overbreadth analysis, and lien release negotiation.