Richmond Capital Leaves MCA Space With Negative Case Law On the Way Out

February 24, 2026 | By: Sean Murray

“Substantive unconscionability is clear from the MCAs’ exorbitant and criminally usurious interest rates, among other things.”
– Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, Supreme Court of New York, February 19, 2026

Richmond Capital Group was never part of the mainstream merchant cash advance industry. The company made headlines for years for its alleged connection to Jonathan Braun, who is now back in prison. After landing in the crosshairs of the FTC, a federal court permanently banned the company and its owner from working in the MCA or debt collection industries ever again in June 2022. The New York State Attorney General piled on with its own legal action and secured a $77 million judgment against Richmond and affiliated entities in February 2024.

But the New York judgment was appealed and earlier this month the Appellate Division of the First Department issued its decision, ruling heavily in favor of the Attorney General. Some of its conclusions, while Richmond-circumstance specific, ought to be examined with a wider lens. Snippets of the Court’s rulings are as follows:

On Reconciliations

“Although the MCAs have mandatory reconciliation provisions, no reconciliation was performed in practice, even though it was supposed to be performed on a monthly basis, and daily payments were fixed and did not represent a good faith estimate of receivables; there is no persuasive evidence of any ad hoc incidents of reconciliation (upon a merchants’ request), which were subject to respondents’ “sole discretion,” and there is evidence that such requests were denied; bankruptcy was an express event of default in some of the MCAs, but even where it was not, repeated nonpayment was, as was breach of the MCAs, which was the case where a merchant “interrupt[ed], suspend[ed], dissolve[d] or terminate[d]” its business; and in the event of any of these circumstances, the full uncollected amount became due and respondents were empowered to enforce the personal guarantees they required the merchants to provide.

Usurious intent is also clear as a matter of law, as, absent reconciliation, the usurious interest rates can readily be calculated based on the information provided on the face of the MCAs.”

On Unconscionability

“The MCAs were also procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Substantive unconscionability is clear from the MCAs’ exorbitant and criminally usurious interest rates, among other things. As to procedural unconscionability, it is not dispositive that many, although not all, of the merchants were sophisticated businesspeople and all had prior experience with MCAs, and respondents misrepresented the terms and nature of the MCAs and used other high-pressure tactics.”

deBanked is not a law firm. To understand the implications of this legal decision, consult with attorneys experienced with the subject matter. For example: Hudson Cook, LLP, Murray Legal PLLC, or others listed here.

Last modified: February 24, 2026