Short answer
Newco Capital Group is an active merchant cash advance funder that litigates aggressively, and not only against merchants. On January 13, 2026 the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court allowed Newco's claims for tortious interference, conversion and civil conspiracy to proceed against a debt settlement company, its two principals and a law office. If you are carrying a Newco advance, the most important thing to understand is that this company pursues everyone in the chain, including the people you hire to help you.
This page summarizes what the public record shows as of September 20, 2026. It draws principally on the Decision and Order of Justice Andrea Masley in Newco Capital Group VI, LLC v MCA Resolve LLC, Index No. 650008/2024, New York County Supreme Court, Commercial Division. It is not legal advice.
The January 2026 decision, and why it matters to you
Most coverage of merchant cash advance litigation looks at funders suing merchants. This case runs in a different direction and it is the more instructive one.
Newco Capital Group VI, LLC v MCA Resolve LLC
Newco sued MCA Resolve LLC, two individuals named Elliott Dinov and Ben Dinov, an attorney named Dominic R. Dale, the Law Office of Dominic Dale Esq., and a set of unnamed John Doe companies. The claims concerned interference with Newco's merchant cash advance agreements.
The defendants moved to dismiss. Two motions were decided together on January 13, 2026.
The outcome was largely in Newco's favour. Justice Masley granted the first motion only in part, dismissing the unjust enrichment claim, and denied it as to tortious interference, conversion and civil conspiracy. The second motion was denied outright. The defendants were directed to file answers by February 13 2026, and the matter was marked a non-final disposition, meaning the case continues.
The practical takeaway is that a funder's claim against a settlement company and the lawyer working alongside it was found sufficient to proceed to the merits. That is not a finding of liability and nothing has been proven. It does mean a court declined to throw the claims out at the first opportunity.
What this tells you about choosing help
One important limitation needs stating before anyone draws the wrong conclusion. This case does not mean that getting help with merchant cash advance debt is unlawful, and it does not mean funders can stop you seeking advice.
What it does tell you is that the method matters enormously. Claims of this kind typically arise where a third party is alleged to have induced merchants to stop paying, to move money out of the designated account, or to block the funder's debits. Those are the behaviours that turn a commercial negotiation into a tort claim, and a merchant who follows that advice is usually the one left holding the breach.
The Everest litigation makes the same point from the merchant's side. A business that blocked its funder's debits on advice lost, had judgment entered against the owner personally, and watched its own attorney get admonished from the bench.
What the record does not give you is any safe harbour for the shortcut. If someone offers to make the debits stop rather than to renegotiate what you owe, the exposure lands on your business and on you personally, whatever happens to them.
Newco also gets challenged, and sometimes successfully
The litigation does not all run one way.
In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding in the Western District of North Carolina, a debtor sought to recover roughly $799,250 paid under two merchant cash advance agreements with Newco Capital Group VI, LLC, arguing the payments were avoidable as fraudulent transfers. The court denied Newco's motion to dismiss and rejected the argument that the debtor had failed to plead a plausible claim, allowing the challenge to proceed.
Separately, in July 2024 a temporary restraining order was obtained against Newco on behalf of a merchant.
The outcome of both is the same in substance: Newco's agreements and collection conduct are being tested, and the tests are surviving early dismissal. That is a meaningfully different position from a funder whose paperwork has been upheld.
Trading names, and why you may not recognise the counterparty
Newco is reported to operate through multiple names, including Capytal.com, MCA Servicing and Apollo Funding, and the funding entities themselves are numbered, as the Roman numeral in Newco Capital Group VI indicates.
A word on sourcing is needed here. The court decision confirms the Newco Capital Group VI entity. The wider list of trading names comes from legal commentary and defence firm reporting rather than from a court record or a public register, so treat it as a prompt to check your own paperwork rather than as an established fact.
The practical step is the same one that applies across this industry. Read the first paragraph of your agreement, and check which company actually debits your bank account, because the name on the marketing and the name on the contract are frequently different.
If you are carrying a Newco advance
Two limitations are worth being honest about.
The first is that an active litigation docket cuts both ways. It means the company enforces, which is bad news if you are behind. It also means its agreements are being scrutinised by courts in more than one jurisdiction, which is not the position of a funder with settled paperwork.
The second is that none of the pending challenges helps you today. A fraudulent transfer claim in a North Carolina bankruptcy does not cancel your balance, and a surviving tortious interference claim in New York does not change your daily debit. Those are other people's cases.
What does help is knowing precisely which Newco entity holds your agreement, what the reconciliation provision requires, what has actually been paid against the purchased amount, and whether any UCC filing sits against your business. Those four facts determine your position. Everything else is context.
Frequently asked questions
Did Newco Capital Group sue a debt settlement company?
Yes. Newco Capital Group VI, LLC sued MCA Resolve LLC, Elliott Dinov, Ben Dinov, Dominic R. Dale and the Law Office of Dominic Dale Esq. in New York County Supreme Court under Index No. 650008/2024. On January 13, 2026 the court allowed claims for tortious interference, conversion and civil conspiracy to proceed, dismissing only the unjust enrichment claim.
Does that mean I cannot get help with a Newco advance?
No. The case does not make seeking help unlawful. Claims of this kind generally concern conduct such as inducing merchants to stop paying or blocking a funder's debits, rather than negotiating a settlement of what is owed. The method used is what creates the exposure.
Has anyone successfully challenged Newco?
Challenges are pending rather than concluded. In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding a debtor sought to recover roughly $799,250 in payments made under two Newco agreements as fraudulent transfers, and the court denied Newco's motion to dismiss, allowing the claim to proceed. A temporary restraining order was also obtained against Newco on behalf of a merchant in July 2024.
What names does Newco trade under?
The court record confirms the entity Newco Capital Group VI, LLC, and the numbering indicates multiple related funding entities. Legal commentary also associates the operation with names including Capytal.com, MCA Servicing and Apollo Funding, though that wider list is not drawn from a court record. Check the first paragraph of your agreement and your bank statement to identify your actual counterparty.
Is the New York case finished?
No. The January 13, 2026 decision was marked a non-final disposition. The defendants were directed to file answers by February 13 2026 and the claims that survived dismissal continue toward the merits. Nothing has been proven against any defendant.
If the payments are the problem
If a Newco debit is taking more than your business generates, the worst available move is the one that turns a payment dispute into a breach: blocking the debit, moving the account, or simply going silent. What protects you is documentation, a reconciliation request made properly and in writing, and a settlement position the funder has a commercial reason to accept. That work is far more effective before an account starts returning debits than after.
