Short answer
LG Funding LLC is a Brooklyn merchant cash advance funder, and it is almost certainly the most quoted name in New York merchant cash advance law without most business owners ever having heard of it. In 2020 the Appellate Division, Second Department decided LG Funding, LLC v United Senior Props. of Olathe, LLC, and that decision is now the three factor test New York courts use to decide whether an advance is really a disguised loan. The merchant in that case lost its counterclaim and won the standard. Nineteen later published appellate decisions cite it, including the Attorney General's own enforcement case against a different funder. So the most useful thing about LG Funding is not a rate or a rating. It is that the company's own contract, litigated to the Appellate Division, produced the map every merchant in New York now uses.
By the Business Debt Adjusters research desk. Researched, written and fact checked on September 2, 2026; source links added September 9, 2026. The figures below are linked to the records they came from. If you can show us a record that contradicts anything here, call (877) 817-0404 and we will correct the page.
This page summarizes what the public record shows as of September 2, 2026: LG Funding's own website; its New York Department of State registration; its Better Business Bureau profile, review file and complaint file; published decisions of the Appellate Division Second Department, the Eastern District of New York and the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois; a full sweep of the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system for every case naming the company; and the 2019 amendment to CPLR 3218 on judgments by confession.
Who you are actually dealing with
LG Funding LLC is a domestic New York limited liability company, Department of State ID 4363969, with an initial filing date of February 22, 2013 and a county of record of Kings. Its status is active. Its Better Business Bureau profile lists it at 1218 Union St Ste 2, Brooklyn, NY 11225-1512, in the Financial Services category, with the same telephone number, 718-362-2260, that appears on the company's own contact page. The BBB file was opened on 1/13/2017.
The company's website is four short pages: a home page, an apply form, a partner form for brokers, and a merchant portal request form. That is the whole thing. There is no rate page, no sample agreement, no fee schedule, no state licence disclosure, no legal or terms page, and no street address anywhere on the site. The merchant portal offers four request options: payoff letter, payment history, balance, and general requests. The footer reads LG Funding and a copyright year of 2021.
A federal bankruptcy judge described the business in one sentence, and it is the most precise description available anywhere: "LG Funding is a New York commercial finance company engaged in the merchant cash advance ('MCA') business." The same opinion recorded that "no evidence was presented to show that LG Funding engaged in any other type of financing."
The practical takeaway is that everything a merchant can learn about this funder before signing comes from its court record, not from its marketing. That is unusual even in this industry, and it is why the sections below are built almost entirely out of documents filed under oath.
The case that made LG Funding a name in New York law
On February 7, 2017 the company and United Senior Properties of Olathe, LLC signed a merchant agreement. LG Funding purchased United's future receivables for 100,990 dollars. In exchange United authorised the company to debit 15 percent of its daily revenue, capped at 2,499 dollars per week, until LG Funding had collected 129,267.20 dollars. Two individuals, Linda Julian and Paul Thoma, signed personal guaranties. LG Funding paid the money on February 9, 2017. It sued in July of the same year.
United's answer raised criminal usury as an affirmative defense and as a counterclaim. LG Funding moved to dismiss both and for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion in an order dated May 7, 2018. LG Funding appealed.
The three factor test the Second Department wrote
The Appellate Division began where every usury analysis begins. "The rudimentary element of usury is the existence of a loan or forbearance of money, and where there is no loan, there can be no usury, however unconscionable the contract may be." A transaction "must be considered in its totality and judged by its real character, rather than by the name, color, or form which the parties have seen fit to give it," and the question is whether the funder "is absolutely entitled to repayment under all circumstances."
Then came the sentence that is now quoted in merchant cash advance cases across the state. "Usually, courts weigh three factors when determining whether repayment is absolute or contingent: (1) whether there is a reconciliation provision in the agreement; (2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy."
Applied to LG Funding's own form, all three pointed the same way. On reconciliation, the agreement said the company "may, upon [United's] request, adjust the amount of any payment due under this Agreement at [its] sole discretion and as it deems appropriate." The court italicised "sole discretion." A reconciliation the funder may grant if it feels like it is not a reconciliation that makes repayment contingent.
On bankruptcy, the form did something stronger. United's written admission that it could not pay its debts, or its bankruptcy, were themselves events of default entitling LG Funding to immediate full repayment of the unpaid purchased amount. If United filed, or was placed into an involuntary filing, LG Funding could enforce the personal guaranties, United was required to deliver a confession of judgment for the purchased amount, and LG Funding could enter that confession as a judgment. In the court's words, "these provisions suggest that the plaintiff did not assume the risk that United would have less-than-expected or no revenues."
The outcome was a split decision that has been misread ever since. LG Funding lost the part that mattered to the merchant: the usury affirmative defenses survived, and summary judgment was denied because the company "failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the transaction constitutes a criminally usurious loan." LG Funding won a narrow technical point: the Appellate Division held the counterclaim should have been dismissed, because under New York law criminal usury may be pleaded as a defense but not as an affirmative counterclaim. The court did not hold that this advance was a usurious loan. It held that a jury could find it was, which is the ruling a defending merchant wants.
Nineteen later decisions run on it
A full text search of CourtListener on September 2, 2026 for the reporter citation 181 AD3d 664 returns 22 results across 19 distinct published decisions. They run from Paycation Travel, Inc. v Global Merchant Cash, Inc. in March 2021 through NewCo Capital Group LLC v SPE Trading, Inc. in June 2026, and they involve funders with no connection to LG Funding at all, among them Principis Capital, Slate Advance, Samson MCA, Kapitus Servicing in four separate appeals, Crystal Springs Capital, Argus Capital Funding, Apollo Funding, Spin Capital and Diesel Funding. One of the 19 is a Georgia Court of Appeals decision, so the test has travelled outside New York.
The most consequential of the 19 is People v Richmond Capital Group LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00990, decided by the First Department on February 19, 2026. That is the Attorney General's enforcement action over funders who the state alleged had "funded over 3,000 transactions styled as merchant cash advances, governed by purported merchant cash advance agreements (MCAs), but which are alleged to have been fraudulent, usurious loans-in-disguise." Upholding liability under Executive Law section 63 (12), the First Department cited LG Funding's case for the proposition that agreements "although styled as MCAs, are properly characterized as loans subject to restrictions on usury." The specific failure it identified was that "although the MCAs have mandatory reconciliation provisions, no reconciliation was performed in practice."
The practical takeaway is that the reconciliation clause is not paperwork. It is the first of the three factors, and courts now look past whether the clause exists to whether it was ever honoured. If you asked for a reduction because revenue fell and were refused, or told the request was discretionary, that fact belongs in a file, dated, in writing.
What is actually in the agreement
Four separate sources quote LG Funding's own contract language: the Second Department's opinion, a federal bankruptcy trial record, a federal default judgment opinion, and the company's own written response to a Better Business Bureau complaint. Together they describe a document most merchants sign without reading.
It says in terms that it is not a loan.
Paragraph 1.9 of the form, quoted at trial: "Merchant and LG agree that the Purchase Price under this Agreement is in exchange for the Purchased Amount and that such Purchase Price is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as a loan from LG to Merchant." The same paragraph has the merchant agree the price "equals the fair market value of such Receipts." Both are recitals, and the Second Department's whole point is that a recital does not decide the question.
New York law governs, wherever you are.
Paragraph 4.5 of the form is a New York choice of law clause. Federal courts in Brooklyn and Chicago have both enforced it against out of state merchants.
The percentage is capped in dollars per week.
The Olathe agreement said 15 percent of daily revenue but capped collections at 2,499 dollars per week. In the Illinois case the caps were 3,999 dollars a week on the first advance and 2,500 dollars a week on the second, for a combined 6,499 dollars a week. A weekly dollar cap is a fixed payment wearing a percentage costume, and it is exactly what the First Department criticised in the Attorney General's case.
Default accelerates everything.
Under the Olathe agreement, on default "the full uncollected purchased amount plus all fees due under the agreement, including reasonable attorneys' fees, would become immediately due and payable in full."
The owner signs personally.
Every case in this record involves a personal guaranty, and in the Florida case the guarantor alone carried the entire judgment while the company was protected by a bankruptcy stay.
There is a fee schedule you never see quoted.
The federal court in Brooklyn enforced a 2,500 dollars fee for blocking the company's access to the bank account and a 195 dollars fee for filing a UCC financing statement.
The company gets your bank login, irrevocably.
Responding on the record to a 2024 complaint, LG Funding quoted its own clauses: the merchant "will provide [LG] with all required access codes and monthly bank statements," and shall provide "all of the information, authorizations, and passwords necessary to verify each Merchant's Receivables. This authorization shall be irrevocable as to each Merchant until the Receivables Purchased amount has been paid in full." A further passage the company placed at page 17 of the agreement reads: "You authorize [LG] to collect the Receivables Purchased Amount under this Agreement by ACH debiting your bank account. [LG] will require access to your bank account each business day."
That last one produced the only complaint on the company's Better Business Bureau file in the last three years, and both sides put their position in writing. The merchant, on 05/16/2024, said the company debited "a little over 7000 dollars a week," that she called for a payoff letter to clear the balance, and that the company then tried to log into her business bank account, failed because she had changed her password, and locked her out of her own account through failed attempts.
LG Funding answered on 06/06/2024. It opened by saying "our agreement with you involves a purchase and sale of future receivables, not a loan." It then confirmed why it had logged in: "our intention was to expedite the process by accessing your account to assess eligibility for additional funding, as permitted by the terms outlined in your contract with us." It quoted the three clauses above and asked the BBB to dismiss the complaint. The merchant rejected the response, the company replied that a balance was outstanding at the time it logged in, and the complaint is recorded as answered.
One important limitation on how to read that exchange: nobody adjudicated it. A BBB complaint is not a court proceeding and no finding was made against either party. What it establishes is narrower and more useful. LG Funding has stated in writing, in a public file, that its agreement gives it standing authority to log into a merchant's online banking until the purchased amount is paid in full, and that it uses that access to assess the merchant for further funding.
What a default actually costs
Three judgments in the public record show the arithmetic from the outside, and they are consistent with one another.
The guarantor who paid more than the company borrowed: Florida Tilt
On June 2, 2014 LG Funding entered a merchant agreement with Florida Tilt, Inc., a Florida construction company, and its president Raymond Cartaya. The company paid 70,690 dollars for 96,845.30 dollars of Florida Tilt's future receivables, collected at 10 percent of daily receivables. Florida Tilt paid "a little over 6,000 dollars" and then, according to the complaint, stopped directing customer payments to the company, blocked its access to the authorised account, and deposited receivables elsewhere. The merchant's own attorney wrote to LG Funding on July 28, 2014 saying the company was "unable to make the payments to fulfill the requirements of the loan terms."
LG Funding sued in the Eastern District of New York on February 9, 2015. Florida Tilt filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on March 3, 2015, so the case was stayed against the company and proceeded against Cartaya personally. Cartaya never answered.
The outcome was a default judgment against one individual for 111,855.26 dollars, entered on August 26, 2015. Judge Pamela K. Chen itemised it: 93,537.61 dollars in contract damages, which included the 2,500 dollars blocked account fee and the 195 dollars UCC filing fee; 1,012.65 dollars in costs; 8,280.00 dollars in prejudgment interest at the statutory 9 percent for 359 days; and 9,025.00 dollars in attorney's fees. That is against 70,690 dollars advanced fourteen months earlier, of which about 6,000 dollars had been repaid. One detail cuts the other way: LG Funding asked for a contingency fee of 20 percent of the judgment, 18,707.52 dollars, and the court refused it as "more than double the lodestar" and therefore excessive. The fee your contract promises the funder is not necessarily the fee a court will award.
The unopposed judgment that grew on appeal: Johnson and Son Locksmith
In January 2017 Johnson and Son Locksmith, Inc., trading as Absolute Lock and Safe, agreed to sell 26,897 dollars of future receivables for an up front payment of 20,690 dollars. Steven Johnson and Erin Johnson guaranteed it. After an alleged default LG Funding sued in Supreme Court, Nassau County. The defendants did not oppose the motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered on November 14, 2017 for 28,103.60 dollars. The trial court refused the company's request for an attorney's fee of 6,457.75 dollars, and LG Funding appealed that refusal alone.
The outcome was a reversal on March 27, 2019. The Second Department held section three of the agreement entitled the company to "all reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees," on a default and enforcement action, that the fee evidence was sufficient, that no hearing was needed because the merchant had not contested reasonableness, and that an amended judgment should include the full 6,457.75 dollars. The merchant's total therefore reached 34,561.35 dollars on a 20,690 dollars advance. The court did draw one line: it refused the additional fees LG Funding sought for the appeal itself. Note what drove this result. The merchant never appeared, so nobody argued the fee was unreasonable and nobody raised the usury defense that the same court would credit eleven months later in the Olathe case. Not showing up is the single most expensive decision in this record.
The advance that survived a bankruptcy trustee: Network Salon Services
This is the most detailed picture of an LG Funding relationship anywhere, because a Chapter 7 trustee took it to trial. Network Salon Services, LLC was a Chicago beauty products distributor run by Anthia Hill after her husband's death. It signed two LG Funding agreements, on November 3, 2015 and January 8, 2016. In total the company advanced 125,000 dollars against an obligation to repay 176,432 dollars, roughly 1.41 times the amount funded.
The mechanics were stipulated. A 1,500 dollars administrative fee was debited on November 9, 2015. The first agreement drew 3,999 dollars a week from November 16, 2015. The second added 2,500 dollars a week, so that from January 19, 2016 to March 28, 2016 the company was taking 6,499 dollars every week. Network Salon remitted 112,979 dollars in total before filing Chapter 7 on May 20, 2016, of which 38,994 dollars fell in the ninety day preference window.
The surrounding facts explain why business owners in this position feel the walls closing. Hill had entered agreements with at least thirteen merchant cash advance businesses. Eleven UCC-1 financing statements were on file against Network Salon before LG Funding funded at all. By March 2016 the company was paying merchant cash advance providers over 30,000 dollars each business day out of fourteen different bank accounts, and the court recorded that "the capital that Network Salon obtained under the MCA transactions was often used to pay off other MCA transactions." At filing, Network Salon listed property worth 200 dollars against liabilities of 4,181,845 dollars.
The outcome, on August 15, 2018, was judgment for LG Funding on all three counts. The preference claim failed on the ordinary course of business defense, because both sides had been doing exactly this kind of business for years. The constructive fraudulent transfer claim failed because the court found Network Salon received reasonably equivalent value: it took in 125,000 dollars and paid out 112,979 dollars. The disallowance count failed because LG Funding had never filed a proof of claim. The court also rejected the trustee's usury theory and the argument that LG Funding had pushed the business under, noting the debtors "may have been on the brink of bankruptcy or insolvency before the first MCA was executed."
One important limitation on that result, and it matters more than the headline: the case was decided in August 2018, and the trustee's usury argument leaned on a line of New York trial decisions holding flatly that merchant cash advances are not loans. The Second Department's three factor test arrived nineteen months later. A trustee arguing the same facts today would argue them under LG Funding's own case. Nothing here says the outcome would change. It says the framework did.
Where LG Funding sues, and when it stopped
A sweep of every page of the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system on September 2, 2026, searching the business name and keeping only captions containing the exact phrase LG Funding, returns 238 cases. LG Funding is the named plaintiff in 235 of them and a defendant in three.
The venue distribution is lopsided. Nassau County Supreme Court holds 200 of the 238. Kings County Supreme Court holds 37. New York County holds one. Nassau is not where most of these merchants are. The named defendants in that Nassau block include businesses in the construction, towing, restaurant, oilfield services and transportation trades scattered across the country, and the merchants in the published cases in this article were in Florida and Illinois. Nassau is where the paper says the case goes.
The filing history by year is the part worth sitting with:
- 2014
1 case.
- 2015
1 case.
- 2016
14 cases.
- 2017
47 cases, including a single day, March 2, on which four separate actions were filed in Nassau County.
- 2018
38 cases.
- 2019
65 cases, the peak, most of them filed in Nassau County in batches during February and March.
- 2020
22 cases, seven of them filed on January 2.
- 2021
44 cases.
- 2022
3 cases.
- 2023
none.
- 2024, 2025 and 2026
one case each.
Between 2016 and 2021 the company filed 230 New York actions. In the five calendar years since, it has filed six, and three of those are cases somebody else brought against it. Something changed at the end of 2021, and the docket does not say what.
The two most recent merchant suits give a strong hint. In ITX LLC d/b/a ITX; ITX Moving et al v LG Funding LLC, index 544793/2025 in Kings County, filed in December 2025, LG Funding's counsel moved to compel arbitration. The case is now disposed, and the docket includes a stipulation of discontinuance filed after the request for judicial intervention. In Hercules Distributors, LLC v LG Funding LLC et al, index 517334/2026 in Kings County, filed May 8, 2026 before Justice Richard Montelione, LG Funding's counsel filed a motion titled "Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss Action and Compel Arbitration" on June 19, 2026. That case is still active.
What the record does not give you is the reason. The court file shows a motion, not an agreement, and the arbitration clause itself is not in any document reviewed for this page. But a funder whose court filings dropped by more than ninety percent after 2021, and who now moves to send merchant claims to arbitration when they do reach a courtroom, is a funder whose disputes are increasingly resolved somewhere the public cannot read them. If you are researching this company by searching dockets, understand that you may be looking at the shadow of the activity rather than the activity.
Two boundaries on all of these counts. NYSCEF covers electronically filed cases in participating courts and case types; it is not a complete census of New York litigation, and older paper filings are under represented. And it does not capture confessions of judgment, which a county clerk enters without any action being commenced at all. The Olathe agreement required a confession of judgment on bankruptcy, so the instrument was in this company's form. On August 30, 2019 New York closed the door that made confessions attractive against out of state merchants. Chapter 214 of the Laws of 2019, sponsored at the request of the Office of Court Administration expressly "to remedy abuses in the use of confessions of judgment by creditors against out-of-state debtors," amended CPLR 3218 so that an affidavit may be filed only with the clerk of the county where the defendant said they resided when it was executed, or where the defendant resided at the time of filing, and added that "a non-natural person resides in any county where it has a place of business."
The federal picture, and who sues whom
A CourtListener search of federal dockets on September 2, 2026 for LG Funding as a named party returns 22 dockets. The twenty listed in the result set resolve to nineteen distinct cases, and the split is the opposite of the New York state pattern. LG Funding is the plaintiff in five and the defendant in fourteen, and eleven of the nineteen sit in bankruptcy court.
The defendant list reads like a map of where these relationships end: a Chapter 7 trustee in Illinois, an official committee of unsecured creditors in Nebraska, and adversary proceedings brought by debtors in the bankruptcy courts of western Pennsylvania, eastern North Carolina, Minnesota, eastern Virginia, northern Georgia and central California. One merchant, JCS Hospitality, appears on both sides: it filed against LG Funding in the North Carolina bankruptcy court in May 2024, and LG Funding filed against it in the North Carolina district court in October 2024.
The practical takeaway is that this funder's federal record is not a collection record. It is a bankruptcy record. When an LG Funding balance reaches a federal courtroom, the usual reason is that the merchant has already filed, and the fight is over money the company has already collected.
What the record does not show
Everything above is adverse by nature, because court files are where things go wrong. The counterweight was gathered in the same pass, not added afterwards, and it is genuinely mixed.
LG Funding holds an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. It is not accredited, which is a separate thing and means only that it has not applied. Its customer review file shows a 5 out of 5 average across two reviews, both posted in May 2024, both describing fast response times. Its complaint file shows 1 complaint in the last 3 years and zero closed in the last twelve months, and the company answered that one complaint substantively and twice. For a funder with 238 New York court filings, one BBB complaint in three years is a low number, and it should be reported as such.
No enforcement action against LG Funding by the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the New York Attorney General was found in the records searched for this page. The Attorney General's merchant cash advance case cites LG Funding's court decision; it is not a case against LG Funding. There is no Trustpilot profile: the URL trustpilot.com/review/lgfunding.com returned a not found page on September 2, 2026.
The federal bankruptcy court that tried the Illinois case made two findings favourable to the company that are rarely quoted. It found "each Agreement was formed in good faith," and it found that "LG Funding assumed the risk of non-payment; if Network Salon ceased producing income, LG Funding could not have been paid." It also found expressly that neither party committed fraud.
A word on sourcing. Two things kept off this page deserve naming. Nothing here relies on aggregator review sites, attorney lead generation pages or industry blogs, because none of those could be traced to a document. And New York State Supreme Court decisions below the appellate level were not read for this page, so the outcome of individual Nassau County actions is unknown. Where a figure could not be read at a primary source it is absent, not softened.
Frequently asked questions
Is LG Funding legit?
Yes, in the sense that matters for this question. LG Funding LLC is a real, active New York limited liability company, Department of State ID 4363969, filed on February 22, 2013 in Kings County, operating from a Brooklyn address. It holds an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau with 1 complaint in the last 3 years, and no Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or New York Attorney General action against it was found in the records searched on September 2, 2026. It has litigated to the Appellate Division and to trial in federal bankruptcy court, and it has won cases as well as lost points. The real question is not whether it exists. It is what its agreement does to a business that falls behind.
Is an LG Funding merchant agreement a loan?
The agreement says it is not. Paragraph 1.9 of the form states the purchase price "is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as a loan from LG to Merchant." New York courts do not treat that as the answer. In this company's own case the Second Department held a transaction must be judged "by its real character, rather than by the name, color, or form which the parties have seen fit to give it," and weighed three factors: whether there is a reconciliation provision, whether the agreement has a finite term, and whether the funder has recourse if the merchant declares bankruptcy. On those facts the court refused to dismiss the merchant's criminal usury defenses and refused summary judgment to LG Funding. It did not rule the advance was a usurious loan. It ruled that a fact finder could.
Why does LG Funding's name appear in other companies' court cases?
Because the decision in its own appeal became the governing New York test. LG Funding, LLC v United Senior Props. of Olathe, LLC, 181 AD3d 664, decided March 11, 2020, set out the three factor analysis for telling a purchase of receivables from a disguised loan. A search of CourtListener on September 2, 2026 returns 19 distinct published appellate decisions citing it, covering funders with no relationship to LG Funding, including the First Department's February 19, 2026 decision in the Attorney General's enforcement action against Richmond Capital Group. Seeing the name in a case about a different funder does not mean LG Funding was involved. It means the court is applying LG Funding's test.
What happens if I miss LG Funding payments?
The published record shows the sequence. Under the agreement litigated in the Second Department, default made the full uncollected purchased amount plus all fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, immediately due and payable in full, and the personal guaranty became enforceable. Specific fees have been enforced by a federal court, including 2,500 dollars for blocking access to the bank account and 195 dollars for a UCC filing. Prejudgment interest runs at the New York statutory rate of 9 percent. In the Eastern District of New York, a 70,690 dollars advance on which about 6,000 dollars had been repaid produced a judgment of 111,855.26 dollars against the personal guarantor alone. In Nassau County, an unopposed 20,690 dollars advance produced 28,103.60 dollars, then 34,561.35 dollars once an attorney's fee of 6,457.75 dollars was added on appeal.
Can LG Funding really log into my business bank account?
The company says its agreement lets it, and it said so in writing on its Better Business Bureau file in June 2024. It quoted clauses requiring the merchant to provide "all required access codes and monthly bank statements" and "all of the information, authorizations, and passwords necessary to verify each Merchant's Receivables," with that authorization "irrevocable as to each Merchant until the Receivables Purchased amount has been paid in full," plus a passage stating the company "will require access to your bank account each business day." It also confirmed that on the occasion complained of it logged in "to assess eligibility for additional funding." No court has ruled on that clause in any decision reviewed for this page. If you signed an agreement with this company, the credential clause is the paragraph to find first, and changing online banking passwords is a step to think through rather than take blind.
Can an LG Funding balance be settled?
Often, and the leverage in a New York advance is more specific than in most. It sits in the three factors: whether the reconciliation clause is discretionary rather than mandatory, whether the term is genuinely open ended, and what the agreement does on bankruptcy. It also sits in timing. In every judgment in this article the amount owed grew between the missed payment and the judgment through accelerated future collections, contract fees, statutory interest and attorney's fees the merchant had agreed in advance to pay, and in one case the merchant who never appeared paid the most. No firm can guarantee an outcome, and any firm that does is not describing this market accurately.
If the payments are the problem
Most business owners who reach us are carrying several advances at once, not one, and the Illinois record in this article is the clearest published picture of how that ends: thirteen funders, fourteen bank accounts, eleven UCC filings, over 30,000 dollars a day going out, and new advances used to pay old ones. Nobody plans that. It is what happens one reasonable decision at a time.
The practical takeaway is that on a New York advance the facts that decide your position are already in your possession. The agreement, and specifically its reconciliation clause, its bankruptcy provisions and its credential authorisation. Your bank statements showing what was actually debited each week against what your revenue actually was. Any request you made for a reduction and whatever answer you got. Any notice of default. Every judgment in this article grew between the missed payment and entry of judgment, and the merchant who never showed up paid the highest multiple of what was advanced. The cheapest day to deal with this is the earliest one. Send us the agreement and your recent statements and we will tell you in writing what is realistic, including if we do not think we can help.
This article summarizes public records as of September 2, 2026: LG Funding LLC's own website at lgfunding.com, including its home, contact, merchants and partner pages; its New York Department of State entity record, DOS ID 4363969; its Better Business Bureau profile, customer review file and complaint file for LG Funding LLC of Brooklyn, New York; LG Funding, LLC v United Senior Props. of Olathe, LLC, 181 AD3d 664, 2020 NY Slip Op 01607 (2d Dept, Mar. 11, 2020); LG Funding, LLC v Johnson and Son Locksmith, Inc., 170 AD3d 1153, 2019 NY Slip Op 02330 (2d Dept, Mar. 27, 2019); People v Richmond Capital Group LLC, 246 AD3d 585, 2026 NY Slip Op 00990 (1st Dept, Feb. 19, 2026); the memorandum and orders in LG Funding, LLC v Florida Tilt, Inc., No. 15-CV-631 (PKC)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y. July 15 and Aug. 26, 2015), as published by govinfo; Gecker v LG Funding, LLC (In re Hill), 589 B.R. 614 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2018); the New York State Courts Electronic Filing case search for the business name LG Funding; federal docket and opinion search results from CourtListener and RECAP; and New York Senate Bill S6395 of 2019, chapter 214 of the Laws of 2019, amending CPLR 3218. Lawsuit references are to filings, allegations and holdings as described in those records, not to findings we have made, and review figures change over time. Allegations in a filed complaint are allegations only. A default judgment establishes liability by non response rather than by proof. Nothing here is legal advice. Business Debt Adjusters helps business owners restructure business debt; that is our interest in the subject, and readers should verify every figure against the primary sources.
Where to go from here
If merchant cash advance payments are squeezing your operation, start with how MCA debt relief works, run your numbers through the MCA true-cost calculator, read our LG review, check our ranking of the best MCA debt relief companies, or get a free consultation on your specific file.
