MCA Servicing Company: The Newco Capital Group Name on Your Debits and Court Papers, and What to Do

Who MCA Servicing Company is

In MCA Servicing Co. v Nic's Painting, LLC (Supreme Court, Rockland County, Index No. 034901/2023), the merchant moved to dismiss on the ground that MCA Servicing Company was not registered to do business in New York. The plaintiff's answer, accepted by the court on standing, was that MCA Servicing Company is a properly registered assumed name of Newco Capital Group VI LLC. That is the whole identity question: MCA Servicing is a trade name a Newco entity uses to fund, debit, and sue.

Justice Keith J. Cornell added, in the April 23, 2024 decision, that his court had dozens of matters filed by the various entities under which the plaintiff operates, including NewCo Capital Group, Capytal.com, MCA Servicing, and Apollo Funding, all seeking judgments against small businesses around the country. If you have seen more than one of those names on your paperwork, they trace to the same operation. For the funder's wider record, including its litigation against settlement companies, see Newco Capital Group reviews and complaints.

An earlier version of this page described MCA Servicing as a collection agency. The court record shows it is the funder under another name, which matters because the agreement, the reconciliation clause, and the personal guaranty are all Newco's, and Newco is the counterparty to any settlement.

The contract, in the court's own numbers

The Nic's Painting agreement, signed June 8, 2023, is a Revenue Purchase Agreement in which the merchant sold $100,750 of future receivables for $65,000, a factor of 1.55. Repayment was $5,927 debited every week until $100,750 was collected, which the court worked out to 17 weeks: to make the stated 10 percent remittance rate true, the business would have needed about $1,007,500 in receivables in roughly four months. The owner signed a personal guaranty.

The merchant paid $67,569 before payments stopped on September 1, 2023. The complaint, filed October 3, 2023, claimed the $33,181 balance plus $490 in bounced payment fees, a $3,000 default fee, and $9,954.30 in attorneys' fees, a total of $46,625.30. The alleged default was not the missed payment itself but failing to request a reconciliation within one business day of a bounced debit, under Section 3.1(d) of the agreement.

The merchant's sworn account was that he called his contact at MCA when he could not pay after two family deaths, was told to call the plaintiff's lawyer, and was refused reconciliation there too. He also said the 10 percent figure was a ruse and that the agreement in practice took 100 percent of his receivables. Those allegations were not proven; they were enough to create issues of fact.

What the court decided, twice

On April 23, 2024, the court denied MCA Servicing summary judgment. The stated reason was that whether the merchant defaulted was a live question, because if MCA refused a reconciliation request, MCA may have breached first. The court went further in its discussion: it wrote that the agreement bears a striking resemblance to contracts found usurious and unconscionable in Crystal Springs Capital v Big Thicket Coin and People v Richmond Capital Group, that the security interest in all of the merchant's assets and the acceleration clause suggest a loan rather than a purchase of receivables, and that the court would not be used as a cudgel to enforce potentially illegal or unconscionable loans.

MCA Servicing moved to reargue. On October 15, 2024, the court granted reargument, then reaffirmed the denial. It corrected the plaintiff's claim that the court had found a prima facie case (it had not), and pointed to the agreement's own text: the merchant is not borrowing money, there is no payment schedule and no time period, and the guarantor guarantees performance, not payment of the purchased amount. On that language, a missed payment is not by itself a breach. The case was sent to a pretrial conference.

Two cautions. A denied motion is not a win; the claims stayed alive. And the plaintiff was right that other judges, including in the same courthouse, have enforced similar agreements. What the record establishes is narrower and still useful: reconciliation is the hinge, and a funder that will not honor its own reconciliation clause has a problem proving breach.

Why MCA Servicing is debiting or contacting you

Because you signed a Revenue Purchase Agreement with a Newco entity and the debits or the demand run under the MCA Servicing name. The pattern in the court file is a weekly or daily ACH, a bounced debit, a one business day window to request reconciliation, then a default declaration that accelerates the full uncollected amount and adds a default fee and attorneys' fees. Suit follows in New York, typically Rockland County, regardless of where your business is; the merchant in this case was in Florida.

What to establish from your own paperwork

• The purchased amount and the purchase price. Divide the first by the second. In the court case it was 1.55.
• The remittance percentage and the fixed debit. Ask what receivables figure the debit was based on; the court could not find one in this file.
• The reconciliation clause, and your requests. Section 1.3 and 1.4 in this agreement. Make every request in writing, dated, with bank statements attached. The plaintiff's argument on reargument was that the merchant had no written proof.
• The default definition and the one business day window. Section 3.1(d) in this agreement.
• Fees stacked on the balance. Default fee, bounced payment fees, attorneys' fees. Courts have cut these as unenforceable penalties in other MCA cases.
• The security interest and the guaranty. Whether it grants a lien on all business assets, and whether the guaranty is of performance or of payment.

If you have been served

Do not ignore it. A default judgment gives the funder the full accelerated amount plus fees and lets it enforce against you personally through the guaranty. An answer preserves the reconciliation defense that stopped summary judgment in this case. See what to do when MCA Servicing sues.

Can a balance with MCA Servicing be settled?

Settlement is with Newco, whichever name is on the letter. The room is the gap between the accelerated balance with fees and what the funder can prove and collect, weighed against litigation risk that this record shows is real for the funder too. See how a balance under the MCA Servicing name can be settled and how MCA debt relief works.

Business Debt Adjusters reviews the agreement, the debit history, your reconciliation requests, and any filings, and tells you what is realistic before you commit to anything.

Sources

• MCA Servicing Co. v Nic's Painting, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 50598(U), Supreme Court, Rockland County, April 23, 2024
• MCA Servicing Co. v Nic's Painting, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 51847(U), reargument decision, October 15, 2024
• New York Attorney General press release, March 5, 2024, cited in the decision

Facts on this page were checked against the linked sources on September 23, 2026. Business Debt Adjusters is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized to represent the company described.