Short answer
National Funding, Inc. is a real, long-established San Diego small business finance company, incorporated on January 27, 1999, and by the standards of this industry its public record is comparatively clean. It holds an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau and has been BBB accredited since February 14, 2013 (BBB business profile, NationalFunding). We located no enforcement action by the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or any state regulator against the company.
What the record does show is a modest volume of collection litigation, a scatter of borrower-side federal claims that closed quickly, a persistent stream of complaints about direct-mail marketing rather than about funding terms, and two lawsuits the company itself filed against debt-relief providers.
It also shows one disclosure that matters enormously if you are behind on payments: in 15 states, National Funding says the financing it offers is limited to sales-based financing, which is the legal name for a merchant cash advance (National Funding terms and conditions). Filed complaints are allegations, not findings, and nothing below is a finding that National Funding did anything unlawful.
This page summarizes what the public record shows as of August 11, 2026, with a link to each underlying document so you can read it yourself. Where the record shows an outcome, the outcome is stated in the same place as the allegation.
Who National Funding is, and who owns it now
National Funding, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered at 4380 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, California 92122 (National Funding terms and conditions). The BBB profile lists the business as incorporated on January 27, 1999, of entity type Corporation, with David Gilbert as owner, Michael Van Asselt as chief financial officer, and Sandra Otero as a manager. The same profile lists a second San Diego location at 9530 Towne Centre Drive and names QuickBridge as a related business (BBB business profile).
The corporate structure changed materially in late 2024, and if you are researching your funder you need to know that the name over the door is now a holding company you have probably never heard of.
- January 27, 1999
National Funding, Inc. is incorporated in California, per the BBB business profile.
- February 14, 2013
National Funding becomes a BBB accredited business. The BBB file was opened eight days earlier, on February 6, 2013.
- 2018
National Funding acquires QuickBridge, an Irvine, California small business funder, as reported by the trade publication deBanked (deBanked, National Funding Acquires QuickBridge).
- October 4, 2022
The company announces a $125 million securitization with Guggenheim Securities (BusinessWire).
- January 2024
National Funding announces its 25th anniversary and states it has provided more than $4.5 billion in working capital and equipment leasing (BusinessWire).
- October 2024
Founder Dave Gilbert launches FairSquare Holding Company as the parent of National Funding, QuickBridge, National Funding XPRS, SmallBusinessLoans.com and Finova Capital (PR Newswire).
- February 2025
FairSquare appoints Franck Fatras as president and chief operating officer (PR Newswire).
The practical takeaway is that a business owner in trouble may be dealing with more than one brand inside the same house. If you took working capital from National Funding in one year and something from QuickBridge or SmallBusinessLoans.com in another, those may now sit under one roof at FairSquare even though your paperwork carries two different names. Pull every agreement before you assume you have one funder.
Does National Funding actually fund you, or broker you out
Both, and the company says so in writing. The first paragraph of its terms and conditions states that National Funding and its affiliates offer small and midsized businesses access to financing, in the company's words, "either directly or by referring SMBs to other financing providers." The same page states that in California, National Funding, Inc. loans are made or arranged pursuant to California Financing Law lender and broker license number 603A169 (National Funding terms and conditions, last updated July 7, 2026).
Read that license description again. It is a lender and broker license. National Funding is authorized to do both, and its own disclosure footnote confirms the broker path is live: "If you apply with us and we are unable to offer financing to you, we may try to match you with one of our partners to obtain financing."
The practical takeaway for anyone trying to negotiate is that the National Funding name on your marketing mail does not tell you who holds your paper. Before you pick up the phone, find the executed agreement and read the funder name on the signature page and on the ACH authorization. If that name is not National Funding, Inc., then National Funding is not the party you need to reach, and any conversation with them will not move your file.
What you actually signed, and why your state changes the answer
This is the single most useful thing on National Funding's website, and it sits in eight point type at the bottom of the page. The first footnote under the company's disclosures reads: "In the following states the financing offered is limited to sales-based financing: AK, CO, MA, MN, NV, NJ, NY, ND, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, and VT" (National Funding disclosures).
That is 15 states. "Sales-based financing" is the term state commercial financing disclosure statutes use for what the market calls a merchant cash advance. It is a purchase of a fixed dollar amount of future receipts, not a loan. If your business is in one of those 15 states, the product you received from National Funding was almost certainly an advance rather than a term loan, whatever your sales rep called it on the phone.
The rest of the disclosure block fills in the mechanics:
Payments are pulled by ACH on business days.
The company states that "Business product payments are withdrawn via Automatic Clearing House (ACH) Monday through Friday excluding bank holidays." That is the debit that empties an operating account when revenue drops.
Working capital runs daily or weekly.
The disclosure states: "Working Capital Loan: payments can be remitted daily or weekly with terms of 4 months up to 24 months." Short terms plus daily debits is the combination that produces distress fastest.
Equipment financing runs monthly.
The same footnote states equipment financing "payments are remitted monthly with terms of 2 to 5 years." Equipment paper behaves very differently from working capital paper in a workout, because the collateral is a specific machine rather than your receivables.
There may be an early payoff discount.
The company states it "may offer early payoff discounts," that discount amounts and terms "are disclosed before acceptance and funding," and that to qualify a customer "must pay the balance in full and remain current and in good standing." Note the two conditions. A business already behind is, by the plain terms of that footnote, outside the discount.
You gave a recurring credit-pull authorization.
The terms state that if you are approved, the company "will obtain your consumer report and credit or business reports on your business periodically until satisfaction of any financing obligation," and that a separate marketing authorization runs for 24 months or until ten business days after written revocation delivered to the San Diego address or the company email.
You likely connected your bank account through Plaid.
The terms describe a recurring Plaid authorization allowing the company and its affiliates and agents to obtain transaction data "now and periodically in the future," running until revoked in writing or until the obligation is satisfied.
Disputes go to California.
The site terms state that any dispute arising from them "shall be resolved exclusively in the State and Federal courts of the State of California," under California law.
One important limitation on all of the above: those are the website terms and the marketing disclosures, not your contract. Your executed financing agreement controls, and it may contain a reconciliation clause, a personal guaranty, a UCC lien description and a default definition that the website never mentions. Nothing on this page substitutes for reading the document you actually signed.
What the federal docket record shows
A search of CourtListener's federal docket index on August 11, 2026 for cases with National Funding, Inc. named as a party returned 42 dockets, of which 21 were filed on or after January 1, 2019 (CourtListener party search). For a lender that has been funding since 1999 and reports more than $4.5 billion placed, that is a modest number.
The shape of the docket matters more than the count. A large share of the entries are adversary proceedings inside borrower bankruptcies, spread across bankruptcy courts in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Tennessee. That is what a portfolio of small business paper looks like when some borrowers fail. It is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct by anyone.
A word on sourcing before the case summaries. Docket metadata tells you what was filed, when, in which court, under what statute, and when the case closed. It does not tell you why a case closed. A termination date can mean a dismissal, a settlement, a remand, a transfer or a judgment, and the docket index alone does not distinguish among them. Where we could not retrieve the disposition document today, the summary below says only that the case terminated on a given date and stops there.
Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc. v. National Funding, Inc.
Filed November 25, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, case number 1:19-cv-07765. The docket records the cause of action as 47 U.S.C. 227, Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment, and the nature of suit as 485, Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In plain terms, a business alleged unlawful telephone marketing. The allegation was never tested.
The outcome was a termination on January 21, 2020, 57 days after filing, with no published opinion on the merits and no finding against National Funding recorded in the docket index (CourtListener docket). A case that closes in under two months without a ruling most commonly resolves privately, but the docket index does not say so and we are not asserting it.
Kerr v. National Funding, Inc.
Filed November 6, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, case number 1:20-cv-02504. The docket records the cause of action as 15 U.S.C. 1681, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the nature of suit as Consumer Credit, with a jury demanded by the plaintiff. This is the one federal claim in the set that lines up with something in National Funding's own paperwork, namely the recurring credit-pull authorization described above.
The outcome was a termination on February 9, 2022, roughly 15 months after filing, with no published merits opinion located and no finding against National Funding recorded (CourtListener docket).
Weaver v. National Funding, Inc.
Filed August 14, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, case number 4:20-cv-02844. The docket index carries no cause-of-action or nature-of-suit coding for this entry, so no characterization of the claim is offered here.
The outcome was a termination on October 8, 2020, 55 days after filing (CourtListener docket). No finding against National Funding appears in the index.
Drive 2 Earn, LLC v. National Funding, Inc.
Three separate dockets appear in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida within eight days in September 2024, under case numbers 0:24-cv-61738 filed September 19, 0:24-cv-61744 filed September 20, and 0:24-cv-61798 filed September 26. Repeat filings in this pattern usually indicate procedural refiling rather than three distinct disputes, and the index does not carry cause-of-action coding for any of them.
The outcome recorded in the index is that 0:24-cv-61738 terminated the same day it was filed, September 19, 2024, and 0:24-cv-61798 terminated on October 31, 2024 (CourtListener docket). No finding against National Funding appears in the index.
National Funding, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration
This one runs the other direction. Filed August 13, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, case number 3:24-cv-01440, assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw. The docket records the cause as 5 U.S.C. 706, Judicial Review of Agency Action, and the nature of suit as Administrative Procedures Act, review or appeal of an agency decision. National Funding is the plaintiff and a federal agency is the defendant.
The outcome is that the docket showed no termination date as of August 11, 2026, meaning the matter appears to remain open (CourtListener docket). It is a dispute with a government agency, not with a borrower, and it has no bearing on how a distressed customer is treated.
The two cases National Funding filed against debt-relief providers
We need to be straightforward here, because this section is about companies that do what we do. Business Debt Adjusters is a business debt settlement firm. National Funding has twice gone to court against firms in the debt-relief space. You should know that before you weigh anything else on this page.
National Funding, Inc. v. Commercial Credit Counseling Services, Inc.
National Funding sued Commercial Credit Counseling Services, Inc., doing business as Corporate Turnaround, and an individual named Bruce Putterman, alleging intentional interference with contractual relations, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and unauthorized practice of law. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. National Funding appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 19-55269.
The outcome, in a memorandum disposition decided June 10, 2020, was a split. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the unauthorized-practice-of-law claim and affirmed the denial of leave to amend it, holding that National Funding "failed to sufficiently identify the substance of Putterman's discussions with its borrowers to make plausible its assertion that he provided legal advice to them," and separately failed to show the conduct occurred in California.
But the court vacated the dismissal of the intentional interference claim and its derivative unfair competition claim and remanded, finding the district court had abused its discretion in refusing leave to amend (Ninth Circuit memorandum, No. 19-55269).
Buried in that opinion is a point every borrower should take seriously. The Ninth Circuit held that National Funding had failed to plead the essential terms of its own loan agreements with enough definiteness, noting that under California law the essential terms of a loan include "the amount of the loan, the rate of interest, the terms of repayment, and applicable loan fees and charges." A funder's paperwork is not automatically airtight. Its enforceability is a question a court can and does examine.
National Funding, Inc. v. J.S. Fritzon Law Firm, P.C.
According to a report by the trade publication deBanked dated July 9, 2024, National Funding filed suit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, case number 37-2024-00021246-CU-BC-CTL, naming both a borrower alleged to have breached a loan agreement and a New York law firm, J.S.
Fritzon Law Firm, P.C. deBanked quotes the complaint as alleging that the non-borrower defendants "routinely make misleading representations to National Funding's customers, including by promising to save them money by settling their obligations to National Funding for a discounted amount when Non-Borrower Defendants have no legitimate basis for making such a promise and no reasonable expectation of being able to fulfill such a promise."
The reported causes of action include intentional interference with contractual relations, unfair competition, conducting business as a prorater without a license, unauthorized practice of law, and violation of the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act (deBanked, July 9, 2024).
The outcome is unknown to us. We were not able to retrieve the current San Diego Superior Court docket for that case number today, so no disposition is stated here. Those are allegations in a complaint filed by one side of a dispute, and they have not been established as fact in anything we could open.
What the record does not give you is any excuse to ignore the prorater point. California licenses proraters, and other states license debt settlement providers. If you are evaluating any firm to help you deal with business debt, including ours, ask what licenses it holds where it operates and ask whether anyone at the firm is giving you legal advice without being a lawyer. That is a fair question and a firm worth hiring will answer it.
The state court record
George Teel v. National Funding, Inc.
An appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas, trial court number 19C505, docketed in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana as No. 06-25-00030-CV. The underlying case dates to 2019 and, based on the appellate posture, National Funding prevailed below and the borrower appealed.
The outcome, rendered June 16, 2025, was that the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and ordered the appellant to pay all costs incurred by reason of the appeal. The judgment was delivered by Justice Rambin, on a panel with Chief Justice Stevens and Justice van Cleef (Court of Appeals judgment, No. 06-25-00030-CV). Dismissal for want of prosecution means the appeal was not pursued, not that a court weighed the merits and sided with the lender.
Beyond the federal index, National Funding also appears as a plaintiff in ordinary collection actions in California state court, including matters filed in San Diego County Superior Court. That is unremarkable. A lender that has funded for 27 years and holds paper across all 50 states will sue borrowers who stop paying, and the existence of collection suits says nothing about whether the underlying contracts are fair.
What borrowers actually complain about
Here the record is unusually specific, and it does not say what you might expect.
The BBB reports 27 total complaints against National Funding in the last three years, with 10 closed in the last 12 months. Of the 27, the BBB classifies 24 as Answered and 3 as Resolved. None are listed as Unanswered and none as Unresolved (BBB complaints page). A zero-unanswered record over three years is not common in this industry and it should be said plainly.
More striking is the subject matter. Read down the visible complaints and almost every one is about direct mail, not money. A complaint dated January 10, 2026 reads: "They won't stop mailing me credit cards in the mail. They say 'here's your pre-approved card' and make it very difficult to opt out. the opt-out website they state in the mailers does not exist. And there is no opt out option on their actual website."
A complaint dated January 29, 2026 reads: "I've received MULTIPLE unsolicited letters and cards from National Funding and the OPT OUT phone number ask for my full SSN to identify me." A complaint dated December 19, 2024 describes receiving a National Funding card bearing the complainant's name alongside a name they did not recognize.
National Funding answers nearly all of them with the same message. A response dated May 14, 2026 states: "We mail to select business owners to make them aware of our funding choices available for their business. Since you have indicated you do not want to receive such offers, we have removed you from our list. Thank you!" On December 20, 2024 the company added a detail worth knowing if you are trying to get off the list: "Please allow 60 days for the change to take effect."
The practical takeaway is that National Funding's complaint profile is a marketing complaint profile, not a collections complaint profile. Across the visible three-year window we did not find complaints alleging surprise ACH sweeps, refusal to reconcile, abusive collection calls, or confessions of judgment. That is a meaningful distinction and it belongs in any honest assessment of this company.
What we looked for and did not find
Publishing what is absent is as important as publishing what is present. On the regulatory question the answer today is short: None found. Searching on August 11, 2026, we did not locate any of the following.
Federal enforcement.
No Federal Trade Commission action and no Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement action naming National Funding, Inc.
State regulator action.
No desist and refrain order, consent order, or other public enforcement action against National Funding, Inc. by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, the New York Attorney General, or the California Attorney General.
Class actions.
No certified or pending class action against National Funding, Inc. appears in the federal docket index we searched.
Confessions of judgment.
No public record we could open showed National Funding using confession-of-judgment provisions, the practice that drew regulatory and press attention to parts of this industry in 2018 and 2019.
Criminal referrals or fraud findings.
None located against the company or its principals.
One important limitation applies to every line above. An absence of results in the sources we searched is not proof of absence in the world. State court records are not uniformly digitized, sealed and arbitrated disputes never appear at all, and CourtListener's index depends on what has been uploaded from PACER. We are reporting what we could and could not find today, not issuing a clearance.
The counterweight: what the record shows in National Funding's favor
Our rule at this firm is that we give credit where the evidence supports it, and here the evidence supports quite a bit of it.
Longevity with continuity.
Incorporated January 27, 1999, still operating under the same founder more than 27 years later. That is rare in small business finance, where entities dissolve and reappear under new names.
Institutional funding, not shadow capital.
A $125 million securitization with Guggenheim Securities in October 2022 indicates the business is financed by regulated institutions that perform diligence (BusinessWire).
Disclosures that are actually there.
The state-by-state sales-based financing limitation, the daily-or-weekly payment terms, the ACH schedule and the early payoff conditions are published on the public site rather than hidden. Many funders publish nothing comparable.
A complaint-handling record with no gaps.
Zero unanswered BBB complaints across three years, with responses typically posted within one to five days of the complaint date.
An adverse action process on paper.
The terms set out an Equal Credit Opportunity Act adverse action notice, a named credit reporting agency, and a written procedure for requesting the specific reasons for a denial within 60 days.
None of that makes a daily-debit advance affordable when your revenue falls. It does mean that if you are behind with National Funding, you are dealing with an established company that answers its mail, and that is a materially better starting position than a workout with a funder that has vanished behind three shell names.
Why the name on your paperwork matters more here than usual
"National Funding" is close to a generic phrase, and the marketplace is full of companies using variations of it. This is not a hypothetical problem. In a BBB response dated January 2, 2025, National Funding told a complainant, in its own words: "As your complaint is addressing NC Funding, not National Funding, it is likely you have the wrong business" (BBB complaints page). The company has to correct the record about its own identity in its own complaint responses.
Before you act on anything you read about "National Funding," including this page, confirm you are looking at the same entity you contracted with. The checks that settle it:
The legal entity name.
Look for "National Funding, Inc." on the signature page, not a trade name in a logo.
The address.
The San Diego company operates from 4380 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, California 92122.
The license number.
California Financing Law lender and broker license 603A169 appears in the footer of nationalfunding.com.
The ACH originator.
Pull a bank statement and read the originator name on the debit. That is the party actually taking your money, and it settles the question faster than any document.
What to do before you call anyone
Whether you end up negotiating yourself, hiring us, or hiring someone else, the same preparation applies.
Find the executed agreement.
Not the term sheet, not the email. The signed document with the funder name, the amount funded, the total amount owed, the payment amount and frequency, and the signature page.
Identify the product.
If your state is among the 15 listed in National Funding's disclosure, or if your document uses the words receipts, receivables purchased or specified percentage, you are probably holding an advance rather than a loan, and the negotiation is different.
Locate the reconciliation clause, if there is one.
Sales-based financing agreements often contain a provision allowing the payment to be adjusted when revenue falls. Whether it exists and how it operates depends entirely on your document.
Read the guaranty.
Determine whether you signed a personal guaranty, and whether it is a full payment guaranty or a narrower performance guaranty triggered only by specific breaches.
Pull 90 days of bank statements.
Every debit, every originator name, every returned item. This is what any competent negotiation is built on, and it is also how you discover funders you forgot about.
Stop stacking.
Taking a new advance to cover an old one is the single most common way a survivable problem becomes an unsurvivable one.
For background on how these agreements work generally, see our explainers on merchant cash advance relief and how to settle business debt. If you are comparing firms, we publish our methodology and our own ranking at best MCA settlement companies for 2026. Our National Funding specific pages cover the National Funding review, what to do if you are sued by National Funding, and the mechanics of a National Funding MCA settlement.
If the payments are the problem
If a National Funding payment is taking money your business needs to operate, the question is not whether the company is legitimate. On this record it plainly is. The question is whether your specific agreement, your current revenue and your other obligations leave room to restructure what you owe.
Business Debt Adjusters negotiates business debt, including merchant cash advances and short term business loans. We do not promise a particular reduction, a particular timeline, or that any funder will agree to anything. No firm can honestly promise that, and any firm that does is telling you something it cannot know. Results depend on your agreements, your funder, and your finances. What we can tell you after reviewing your documents is whether there is a realistic path, and if there is not, we will say so.
Bring the executed agreement, 90 days of bank statements, and a list of every funder you owe. We will read the documents and give you a straight assessment. See our overview of MCA debt relief or book a free consultation.
Frequently asked questions
Is National Funding legit?
Yes. National Funding, Inc. is a California corporation incorporated on January 27, 1999, operating from 4380 La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego, holding California Financing Law lender and broker license number 603A169, and carrying an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau with accreditation since February 14, 2013. We located no enforcement action against the company by the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or any state regulator.
Being legitimate is not the same as being affordable, and a legitimate funder can still hold you to an agreement your business can no longer sustain.
Is National Funding a loan or a merchant cash advance?
It depends on your state and your document. National Funding's own disclosures state that in 15 states, specifically AK, CO, MA, MN, NV, NJ, NY, ND, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN and VT, the financing it offers is limited to sales-based financing, which is the statutory term for a merchant cash advance.
Outside those states the company also offers term loans, working capital loans with daily or weekly payments over 4 to 24 months, and equipment financing with monthly payments over 2 to 5 years. The controlling answer is on your signed agreement, not on any website.
Does National Funding lend its own money or broker to other lenders?
Both. National Funding's terms and conditions state that the company and its affiliates offer financing "either directly or by referring SMBs to other financing providers," and its California license is a lender and broker license. A separate disclosure states that if the company cannot offer you financing itself, it may try to match you with one of its partners.
This matters if you are behind on payments, because you have to negotiate with whoever actually holds your paper, and that name is on your executed agreement and on the ACH debit in your bank statement.
What do National Funding complaints usually involve?
Marketing, not money. The Better Business Bureau lists 27 complaints against National Funding over the last three years, of which 24 are recorded as Answered and 3 as Resolved, with none unanswered and none unresolved. The visible complaints are overwhelmingly about unsolicited direct mail, pre-approved card mailers, and difficulty getting removed from mailing lists. The company responds to nearly all of them by confirming removal from its list and has stated that removal can take up to 60 days.
We did not find a pattern of complaints alleging surprise ACH sweeps or abusive collection practices.
Has National Funding been sued by borrowers?
A small number of times, and none of those cases produced a published finding against the company that we could locate. CourtListener's federal docket index returned 42 dockets naming National Funding, Inc. as a party, 21 of them filed since January 1, 2019, and most are adversary proceedings inside borrower bankruptcies.
The borrower-side federal claims we identified include a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case in the Northern District of Illinois that terminated 57 days after filing and a Fair Credit Reporting Act case in the Northern District of Ohio that terminated in February 2022. Filed complaints are allegations, not findings.
Can a National Funding balance be settled or restructured?
Sometimes, and no one can promise it in advance. Whether a balance can be restructured depends on the language of your specific agreement, whether it contains a reconciliation provision, whether you signed a personal guaranty, how far behind you are, what other funders are debiting the same account, and what National Funding or the actual holder of your paper is willing to consider at that moment. Results depend on your agreements, your funder, and your finances. Any firm that quotes you a settlement percentage before reading your documents is guessing.
This article summarizes public records and publicly available disclosures reviewed on August 11, 2026.
Primary sources include the National Funding terms and conditions and disclosure footnotes at nationalfunding.com, last updated July 7, 2026; the Better Business Bureau business profile and complaints page for NationalFunding, San Diego, California; the CourtListener federal docket index, searched by party name for National Funding, Inc.; the memorandum disposition of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in National Funding, Inc. v. Commercial Credit Counseling Services, Inc., No. 19-55269, decided June 10, 2020; the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas in George Teel v. National Funding, Inc., No. 06-25-00030-CV, rendered June 16, 2025; reporting by the trade publication deBanked dated July 9, 2024 and October 2018; and corporate announcements distributed via BusinessWire and PR Newswire.
Every adverse item described above is either an allegation in a filed complaint or a docket entry, and allegations are not findings. Where a court reached an outcome, the outcome is stated. Where we could not verify a disposition, we say so rather than implying one. Business Debt Adjusters is a business debt settlement firm and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by National Funding, Inc. or FairSquare Holding Company.
Nothing on this page is legal advice.
