Champion Auto Sales Decision Brings Closure to Another Case
A merchant seeking to have a judgment against them voided on the basis that the underlying Purchase and Sale of Future Receivables agreement they entered into was actually a usurious loan, has had their motion denied pursuant to the law as decided in Champion Auto Sales, LLC et al. v Pearl Beta Funding, LLC, court records show.
3148521 Canada, Inc. and Amir Soghraty, through attorney Amos Weinberg, attempted to convince the Court that their MCA agreement with Principis Capital was actually a loan. After lingering in the court system for months, the Honorable David Benjamin Cohen, issued a decision on Friday, citing the appellate court ruling.
Specifically, plaintiff argues that the underlying judgment is based upon a usurious loan. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an arrangement where defendant purchased the future receivables that may (or may not) be collected. The Appellate Division, First Department, recently decided this very issue (argued by the same attorney as plaintiff herein) and held “the evidence demonstrates that the underlying agreement leading to the judgment by confession was not a usurious transaction” (Champion Auto Sales, LLC v Pearl Beta Funding, LLC, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 01645 [1st Dept 2018]).
The decision can be found under Index # 655008/2017 in the New York Supreme Court
Last modified: April 1, 2018
Sean Murray is the President and Chief Editor of deBanked and the founder of the Broker Fair Conference. Connect with me on LinkedIn or follow me on twitter. You can view all future deBanked events here.
