Short answer
Fora Financial is a real, operating small business finance company. It has been funding merchants since 2008, it is majority owned by a private equity firm, its CEO signs filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and it has sold more than $250 million of its receivables into rated asset-backed securitizations. It has also been named as a defendant in 36 federal court cases since 2014, including one Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action that ended in a court-approved settlement. Most of the federal cases are bankruptcy adversary proceedings brought after a borrower filed bankruptcy, not borrower lawsuits about loan terms. Filed complaints are allegations, not findings, and nothing on this page is a finding that Fora Financial did anything unlawful.
This page summarizes what the public record shows as of August 2026, with a link to each underlying source so you can read the documents yourself rather than take our word for it.
Who Fora Financial is today
Fora Financial is the operating brand for a group of New York limited liability companies. Four of them file directly with the SEC as asset-backed securitizers: Fora Financial Advance LLC, Fora Financial Business Loans LLC, Fora Financial West, LLC, and Fora Financial East LLC, the last of which was registered in 2026 (SEC EDGAR company search). If you have a Fora agreement, the counterparty named on it is probably one of those entities rather than "Fora Financial" as such. That matters when you are reading a UCC filing or a demand letter and trying to work out who actually holds your paper.
The company's own timeline says co-founders Jared Feldman and Dan Smith launched the business in 2008 as Paramount Merchant Funding, rebranded it as Fora Financial in 2013, and sold a majority stake to Palladium Equity Partners LLC in 2016. Feldman remains CEO and a board member. Smith was president from 2008 to 2020 and is now a board member. The same page states the company has provided more than $5 billion in working capital to more than 55,000 businesses and employs roughly 200 people (Fora Financial, About Us).
Two structural facts are worth knowing before you read anything else. First, Fora is not a bank. Its own site discloses that "Business loans and revenue advances are issued by Fora Financial, Celtic Bank, or a network of unaffiliated third-party funding providers," and that the provider will be identified in the agreement before signing. Fora announced the Celtic Bank partnership in September 2025 (PR Newswire, September 2025). Second, Fora sells its receivables. That is why it appears in SEC filings at all, and it is the single most useful thing about researching this company, because securitization forces disclosure that private funders never otherwise produce.
What the federal court record actually contains
A search of the CourtListener and RECAP federal docket archive for cases with "Fora Financial" in the case name returns 36 unique dockets, filed between February 4, 2014 and July 27, 2026 (CourtListener, searched August 11, 2026). Broken down by type:
22 are bankruptcy adversary proceedings.
These are filed inside an existing bankruptcy case, usually by a Chapter 7 trustee or a debtor in possession, and they name a Fora entity as defendant. The recorded causes include preference actions under section 547, fraudulent transfer claims under section 548, and turnover claims under section 542. These are a routine consequence of funding businesses that later file bankruptcy. Their existence is not an allegation of wrongdoing in how the funding was originated.
4 are cases Fora filed as plaintiff.
Two are trade secret suits against other companies under the Defend Trade Secrets Act: Fora Financial Holdings, LLC v. New York Tribeca Group, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-08539 (S.D.N.Y.) and Fora Financial Holdings, LLC v. Dream Data Services, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00780 (D.N.J.). Two are suits against merchants: Fora Financial Advance, LLC v. Allsolar Service Company, LLC, No. 6:14-cv-00183 (M.D. Fla.) and Fora Financial Advance, LLC v. Concept 32, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-02157 (D. Colo.).
2 involve the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
One of them settled as a class action. Details below.
1 is a civil RICO case.
Details below.
The remainder are commercial contract disputes
and one 2025 case docketed under consumer credit.
One limitation matters a great deal here, and most pages on this topic do not state it. This archive covers federal courts only. Merchant cash advance collection litigation overwhelmingly happens in state court, particularly in New York, and none of that appears above. RECAP coverage of federal dockets is also incomplete. The real number of cases involving Fora entities in all courts is larger than 36. Nothing here should be read as a complete litigation history.
The TCPA class action Fora Financial settled
This is the most substantive item in the federal record and the one that produced an actual court-approved outcome.
In November 2016, Scott Dolemba filed a putative class action against Fora Financial, LLC and Fora Financial Holdings, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, docketed as Dolemba v. Fora Financial, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-10651 (docket). The plaintiff moved for class certification the same day the complaint was filed. Fora moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim in May 2017. Rather than litigate that motion, the parties agreed to a stay and the case was referred to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference later that month.
How that case ended
The docket shows Judge Andrea R. Wood entered a Final Approval Order on November 28, 2018. On the same day the court allowed 36 late but otherwise valid claims into the settlement, writing that "the equities favor allowing the valid but late claims." In September 2019 the court noted that the plaintiff's memorandum in support of the final accounting "reports that the settlement fund has been distributed successfully." The case was dismissed with prejudice on April 29, 2020 on a joint stipulation.
So a class settlement fund was created, approved, and paid out. Fora's motion to dismiss was never decided. As is standard in class settlements, approval is not a finding of liability and the docket entries reviewed do not record any admission of wrongdoing.
The second TCPA matter, Abante Rooter and Plumbing v. Fora Financial LLC, No. 3:19-cv-00591 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in February 2019 and ended differently. The plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on July 26, 2019 (docket). A voluntary dismissal means the plaintiffs ended the case themselves. Nothing was established.
The RICO case that named Fora alongside twenty other funders
In September 2022, Liberty Haulers, Inc. v. Fora Financial Advance, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-07929, was filed in the Southern District of New York under the civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. 1962 (docket). Fora Financial Advance was one of roughly twenty funding companies named as defendants, alongside EBF Holdings, LG Funding, Fox Capital Group, Cloudfund, Velocity Capital Group, Newco Capital Group VI, Ace Funding Source and others. Suits of this shape, brought by a merchant against every funder it dealt with at once, appeared repeatedly in the advance industry around that period.
How that case ended
It never reached the merits. The docket records that the court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for December 22, 2022 and that neither party appeared. The court rescheduled. An Order of Dismissal was entered on April 3, 2023. The allegations in the complaint were never tested, and no finding was made against Fora Financial Advance or any other defendant.
The most recent case in the archive naming a Fora entity, Alili v. FORA Financial LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00930 (S.D. Ohio), was filed in December 2025 and docketed under consumer credit with a cause listed as the Small Business Act. Mantis Funding LLC was also named. The docket shows a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction entered February 17, 2026 (docket).
The 2025 appellate decision and what it revealed about Fora's broker contracts
The only published appellate opinion involving Fora is Fora Fin., Advance, LLC v 4 Pillar Consulting, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01422, 236 AD3d 491, decided March 13, 2025 by the Appellate Division, First Department (official slip opinion). Fora was the plaintiff. The defendant was an independent sales organization, meaning a broker that refers merchants.
Two things in that decision are worth reading if you want to understand how this business is wired. First, the court describes a liquidated damages provision in Fora's ISO agreement that the contract calls an "Interference Fee," and notes that the stipulated amount "is tied to the loan balance that would have been due to plaintiffs if defendant had not breached the terms of the parties' contract." The court declined to decide whether that clause is an unenforceable penalty, observing that liquidated damages provisions "have routinely been held to be enforceable against sophisticated parties." Second, the court repeatedly refers to Fora's merchant agreements as "plaintiffs' third-party loan agreements with merchants referred by defendant."
The outcome went against Fora on one claim. The First Department modified the lower court order to dismiss Fora's tortious interference cause of action, holding that the complaint "broadly speculate[d]" that the broker was involved in merchant defaults but failed to point to specific conduct, and that the claim duplicated the breach of contract claim. The rest of the order was affirmed. Defense counsel publicized the result (Goetz Platzer LLP).
Separately, Division 5, LLC v. Fora Financial Advance LLC, No. 1:24-cv-06870 (S.D.N.Y.), a diversity breach of contract case filed in September 2024, terminated in the district court on July 14, 2025. Fora Financial Advance took an appeal to the Second Circuit, No. 24-2918, where the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal in June 2025 and Fora opposed. The Second Circuit mandate was transmitted to the district judge on August 20, 2025 (district docket). The publicly available docket text does not state the substance of the dispute or the terms of the resolution, so this page does not characterize it.
What Fora's own SEC filings show about its book
This is the counterweight section, and it is also where the most specific verifiable facts live.
Fora's four securitizer entities have filed Form ABS-15G with the SEC since October 2019. These are not annual reports and they do not contain a legal proceedings section, so there is no equivalent of a public company disclosing its litigation exposure in its own words. What they do contain is an independent accountant's agreed-upon procedures report on the loan pool, and those exhibits are unusually informative.
The May 27, 2026 filing for the Series 2026-1 transaction, signed by Jared Feldman as CEO for all four securitizer entities, attaches a report on a data file "containing information on 2,594 small business receivables" as of April 30, 2026, intended as collateral for notes issued by Fora Financial Asset Securitization 2026 LLC and reviewed for ATLAS SP Securities, a division of Apollo Global Securities (Exhibit 99.1 to Form ABS-15G). The same exhibit references a total portfolio data tape of 4,784 small business receivables as of February 28, 2026.
Three details in that exhibit are directly useful to a borrower. It defines the "Receivables Agreement" as "the purchase and sale of future receivables agreement (revenue advance), business loan and security agreement, business loan and security agreement supplement, business funding application, working capital application, credit application, and/or financing application," which confirms that Fora writes both purchase-of-receivables agreements and loan agreements and that which one you have depends on your document. It lists the attributes the accountants tested, which include Factor Rate, ContractTerm, PaymentInterval, FICO and a proprietary "PRISMTier" credit grade. And it confirms the accountants found the tested information in agreement with the source documents except for exceptions listed in a separate exhibit.
A company that submits its files to third-party accountants, sells rated notes and reports the results to the SEC is operating at a level of documentation that most merchant cash advance funders never approach. That is context, not a verdict, and it does not tell you anything about how your particular account will be handled.
How the product actually works
Fora publishes more of its own terms than most funders do, which makes this section unusually verifiable. Everything below comes from the company's own site (Fora Financial FAQ and Revenue Advance), reviewed August 11, 2026.
Pricing is a factor rate, not an interest rate.
Fora states: "Our rates range from 1.13 to 1.50 with early payback provisions that can reduce your rate to as little as 1.05." A 1.40 factor on $100,000 means you repay $140,000 regardless of how quickly you repay it, unless a prepayment discount applies.
Terms are short.
Small business loan payback periods run four to 18 months. Revenue Advance terms run up to 18 months.
Debits are daily or weekly.
The Revenue Advance page states repayment is "a set percentage of your daily or weekly revenue." The small business loan is described as having a fixed payback schedule. A short term plus a factor rate is what makes the effective annualized cost high even when the factor looks modest.
There is an origination fee.
Fora states the one-time origination fee "can be as low as 2.5 percent," plus a one-time wire fee.
Qualification is revenue-led.
Six months in business, $17,000 per month in gross sales or $240,000 annually, and a minimum 570 FICO. Maximum $1.5 million.
UCC filings are conditional, not automatic.
Fora states it reserves the right to file a UCC based on circumstances including "breaching the agreement, stacking loans, or shopping your file to other funders without informing us," and also if you stop paying, if your checking account is frozen or closed, or if you have "bounced three consecutive payments." It states it terminates the UCC when the agreement reaches a zero balance and all pending debits clear.
Fora does not report to the business credit bureaus.
Asked whether funding builds business credit, the FAQ answers plainly: "No. Receiving funding from us will not build your business credit as we do not report on your credit report." That cuts both ways. It also means a default is not reported.
Stacking is a contract breach.
Fora states that taking additional funding while you have an open Fora agreement "constitutes a violation of your financing agreement," and that this is true "regardless of what a broker may tell you."
On personal guarantees and confessions of judgment: Fora's published FAQ does not describe either one, and no confession of judgment by a Fora entity was located in the record reviewed for this page. That is not the same as saying there are none. Confessions of judgment are filed in state court, which the federal archive above does not cover. It is worth knowing that New York amended CPLR 3218 effective August 30, 2019 to bar creditors from filing confessions of judgment in New York against out-of-state debtors, a change driven by the advance industry's use of that device (Riker Danzig). Whether your agreement contains a personal guaranty or a confession is a question only your signed document answers. Read it.
What Fora says about borrowers in trouble
Fora's FAQ contains two sections aimed at struggling merchants, and any honest page on this subject has to reproduce them, including the part that is inconvenient for a company like ours.
Fora states that "Engaging with a debt consolidation or debt settlement company jeopardizes your business's financial standing and violates the terms of your agreement with Fora Financial, resulting in potential legal consequences," and that "Fora Financial does not work directly with companies like them." It urges merchants to contact it directly, saying: "We offer dedicated opportunities and settlement options for our clients, which are not extended to debt settlement or consolidation companies."
Take that at face value and act on it accordingly. Fora says it will discuss hardship directly with you, and the FAQ tells borrowers having difficulty to "speak to your Solutions Consultant who may be able to work out a temporary solution." If you have not called them yourself, call them before you call anyone else. It costs nothing and it is the option Fora says it prefers.
It is also fair to note what the statement is. It is a funder's position on third-party negotiators, published by the funder, in a document the funder controls. Whether working with an outside firm actually breaches your specific agreement depends on the language in your specific agreement, and that is a question for a lawyer who has read it, not for a marketing page on either side.
Timeline of the public record
- 2008
Jared Feldman and Dan Smith found Paramount Merchant Funding in New York.
- 2013
Paramount rebrands as Fora Financial.
- February 4, 2014
Earliest federal docket in the archive: Fora Financial Advance sues a merchant in the Middle District of Florida.
- 2016
Palladium Equity Partners LLC acquires a majority stake.
- November 16, 2016
Dolemba v. Fora Financial filed in the Northern District of Illinois under the TCPA.
- 2018
Fora acquires United States Business Funding and reports $1 billion funded since inception.
- November 28, 2018
The court enters a Final Approval Order in the Dolemba class settlement.
- July 26, 2019
The Abante Rooter TCPA case is voluntarily dismissed.
- October 21, 2019
Three Fora securitizer entities make their first SEC filings.
- September 10, 2019
The court notes the Dolemba settlement fund "has been distributed successfully."
- April 29, 2020
Dolemba dismissed with prejudice.
- September 16, 2022
Liberty Haulers RICO case filed in the Southern District of New York naming Fora and about twenty other funders.
- April 3, 2023
The RICO case is dismissed after neither party appeared at the initial pretrial conference.
- 2024
Fora reports over $4 billion funded and closes a $126.9 million asset-backed securitization.
- March 13, 2025
The First Department decides Fora Fin., Advance, LLC v 4 Pillar Consulting, dismissing Fora's tortious interference claim.
- September 2025
Fora announces a nationwide lending partnership with Celtic Bank.
- February 17, 2026
Alili v. FORA Financial dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in the Southern District of Ohio.
- May 27, 2026
Fora files Form ABS-15G for the Series 2026-1 securitization covering 2,594 receivables.
- July 27, 2026
Most recent docket in the archive, a bankruptcy adversary proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois.
What this means if you owe Fora Financial money
What the record does not give you. There is no finding of liability against any Fora entity in the federal record reviewed here. There is no borrower class action about factor rates, debit practices or collections. The TCPA settlement concerned telephone contact, not loan terms, and settlements are not admissions. The RICO case was dismissed without reaching the merits. The 22 bankruptcy adversary proceedings mean some Fora borrowers went bankrupt and trustees tried to claw back payments, which is what happens to every active small business funder. None of that is a defense to your balance, and reading a docket list is not a substitute for advice from an attorney who has read your agreement.
What is genuinely useful. Three things. First, identify which Fora entity is actually your counterparty and whether your document is a loan agreement or a purchase of future receivables, because Fora's own SEC exhibit confirms it writes both and the distinction can matter legally. Second, work out your real cost. Take the total repayment amount, subtract the funded amount, and compare that to the number of months you actually have. A 1.40 factor over eight months is not a 40 percent cost. Third, if a UCC has been filed, note Fora's own published position that it terminates the filing once the balance reaches zero and pending debits clear, and hold them to it in writing when you get there.
And if the honest problem is that the daily or weekly debit no longer fits the revenue, that is a cash flow problem to solve directly. It is not a legal argument waiting to be found in someone else's lawsuit.
Frequently asked questions
Is Fora Financial legitimate?
Yes, in the sense that matters for this question. Fora Financial is a real operating company founded in 2008, majority owned since 2016 by Palladium Equity Partners, with four affiliated entities that file asset-backed securitizer reports with the SEC and a September 2025 lending partnership with Celtic Bank. It is not a scam or a shell. That is separate from whether its pricing suits your business, which is a question about the factor rate and term on your specific offer.
Has Fora Financial been sued by borrowers?
The federal docket archive reviewed for this page returns 36 cases naming Fora entities since 2014. Twenty-two are bankruptcy adversary proceedings brought by trustees or debtors after a borrower filed bankruptcy. Two are Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases about phone or fax contact. One is a civil RICO case that was dismissed in 2023 without reaching the merits. This review covers federal courts only and is not a complete litigation history, and most merchant cash advance collection cases are filed in state court.
Did Fora Financial ever settle a class action?
Yes. In Dolemba v. Fora Financial, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-10651 in the Northern District of Illinois, a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, the court entered a Final Approval Order on November 28, 2018 and later noted that the settlement fund had been distributed successfully. The case was dismissed with prejudice on April 29, 2020. A class settlement is not an admission of liability and the docket entries reviewed do not record any admission of wrongdoing.
What rates and terms does Fora Financial charge?
Fora states on its own site that its rates range from 1.13 to 1.50 as a factor, with early payback provisions that can reduce the rate to as little as 1.05, and a one-time origination fee that can be as low as 2.5 percent plus a wire fee. Terms run four to 18 months with daily or weekly debits. Maximum funding is $1.5 million. Your actual offer depends on underwriting, and the agreement you sign controls.
Will Fora Financial file a UCC lien on my business?
Fora states it reserves the right to file a UCC based on circumstances during the life of the agreement, specifically naming breach of the agreement, stacking additional funding, shopping your file to other funders without telling Fora, stopping payment, having your checking account frozen or closed, or bouncing three consecutive payments. It states it terminates the UCC when the agreement reaches a zero balance, is satisfied in full, and all pending debits have cleared.
Can I use a debt settlement company if I have a Fora Financial advance?
Fora's published position is no. Its FAQ states that engaging a debt consolidation or debt settlement company violates the terms of your agreement with Fora Financial and that Fora does not work directly with such companies, and it directs merchants in hardship to contact Fora instead. Whether that restriction is enforceable against you depends on the language in your specific agreement, which is a question for an attorney who has read it. Contact Fora directly first, because that is the remedy the company says it offers.
If the payments are the problem
Business Debt Adjusters works with owners who are behind on merchant cash advances and short term business loans, negotiating with funders on balances and payment terms. We are not a law firm and we do not provide legal advice. Results depend on your agreements, your funder, and your finances, and no particular outcome can be promised. As noted above, Fora Financial's published position is that it does not work with third-party debt settlement companies and prefers to handle hardship directly, so talk to Fora first and understand your own contract before you decide anything.
If you want the landscape first, our guide to MCA debt relief explains how settlement actually works and what it costs, our page on merchant cash advance relief covers the options available to a struggling merchant, and how to settle business debt walks through the process step by step. Our comparison of the best MCA settlement companies in 2026 lays out how the firms in this space differ. For Fora specifically, see our Fora review, our page on being sued by Fora, and our overview of Fora settlement options.
When you want a straight read on where you stand, you can book a free consultation.
