|12/01/2021||Settlements in PAR Funding SEC case|
|07/27/2021||Update on PAR Funding case|
|12/18/2020||Par Funding, Receiver continue to spar|
|11/02/2020||Status of Par Funding|
|08/17/2020||PAR Funding receivership website|
Potential Match Found in deBanked UCC Filer list
|Company Name||Phone number||UCC Alias 1||Alias 2||Alias 3||Alias 4||Alias 5|
|Par Funding||215-922-2636||Complete Business Solutions Group|
Several defendants in the PAR Funding SEC case settled with the SEC prior to trial, court records reveal. The settlements require defendants to “pay disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, prejudgment interest of disgorgement, and a civil penalty.” Those amounts will be determined by the Court.
Two other defendants have elected to go to trial.
Little has changed in the PAR Funding case since the last update. PAR’s assets are being handily liquidated by the Receiver while the defendants maintain that the Receiver intentionally destroyed a well-run business. Most recently, the defendants have asked the judge to “discharge” the Receiver.
It has been a year since the Philadelphia-based company was suddenly shuttered as word of an SEC case filed under seal became public. Attorneys for the SEC took issue with the way PAR kept its books and how it marketed itself to potential investors. From the start, the defendants strongly disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertions. After an independent Receiver was appointed, the judge has repeatedly deferred to his assessments and PAR’s business has been systematically dismantled in the process.
Anyone can access the ongoing court battle on the Receivership’s official website.
“From inception through 2019, [Par Funding] incurred a cash loss from operations of $136.2 million.”
That’s the conclusion reached by Bradley D. Sharp, CEO of Development Specialists Inc (DSI), the financial advisor to the Receiver appointed in the Par SEC case.
Par has scoffed at the Receiver’s analysis of its business. “We do not necessarily begrudge attorneys, whose skill sets are often in other areas, a potential inability to understand the math that often makes for a strong and profitable financial model,” Par’s lawyers wrote in an October court filing. “There is a reason that smart, mathematically inclined people are typically hired by banks, hedge funds and financial services firms. But the Receiver and his counsel’s inability to understand Par’s business has led to all manner of baseless accusations that are easily answered in the very documents they possess but do not understand…”
Par says it was profitable and walks the Court throught its mathematical process. Sharp says Par’s assessment “is misleading and does not reflect actual operations at the company.”
Sharp alludes to Ponzi-like characteristics but refrains from using that term. “From inception through 2019, [Par] paid $231 million to investors, consisting of principal repayments totaling $135.6 million and interest payments totaling $95.4 million. [Par] could not have made these principal and interest payments to the investors without additional funds from the investors.”
Par explained that the key to its business is in the compounding:
“The merchant funding model is profitable because merchant funding returns are reinvested, either in a new or different merchant, or in an existing merchant with adequate receivables as a consolidation, or as a refinance of a merchant which may already have MCA funding from another provider. And the reinvestment begins on the merchant funding returns which commence immediately and occur daily. In very simple form, the math works as follows. Assuming $10,000 is funded to a merchant pursuant to a funding agreement providing for a funding return of $13,000 over the course of 100 daily ACH withdrawals, the agreement would provide for repayment to begin immediately with daily payments of $130. As those monies are returned, portions are used to pay operating expenses, but most of the monies are re-invested to fund other merchants. Mathematically, this means that the original $10,000 is being used to fund more than one merchant. Over the life of a single $10,000 funding, that same $10,000 can be used to fund multiple merchants, all of whom are paying funding fees in excess of the principal amount received. Thus, the original $10,000, at a 1.30 factor rate, generates $13,000 on the first merchant cash advance (MCA). Those funds are reinvested and generate $16,900 on the second MCA, and $21,970 by the third MCA – an increase of $11,970 over and above the initial $10,000. And that can happen within a year. This is the powerful compounding effect of the financial model.
That is the simplest version of the model. In practice, the model is far more sophisticated than that because the leveraging to new merchants of the MCA returns begins as soon as the MCA payments come in.”
Par additionally said:
“At the conference on October 8, 2020, the Receiver’s counsel told this Court, and many investors, that out of $1.5 million received per day from merchants prior to July 28, 2020, $1.2 million was used for new MCA funding. Thus, according to the Receiver’s counsel, only $300,000 constituted net collections, about 20%. The Receiver’s counsel appears to be suggesting that the company is not holding on to receivables but, instead, is refunding the same merchants 80% of receipts. This proposition is wrong and its assertion shows that the Receiver and his counsel do not understand the MCA business.”
One could assess that a large element of this case consists of the Receiver being like, ha! well look at this! and Par responding, well, yes, that is actually how our business works.
In fact, that is precisely the angle Par took in defending its use of funding new deals with money collected from deals previously funded.
“First, the numbers show that collections are used to fund new MCA deals,” Par’s attorneys wrote. “This may come as a total surprise to the Receiver and his counsel, but funding merchants is the business of Par. That is like criticizing Ford Motor Corp. for using its car sales income to build and sell more cars.”
Both sides agree that Par advanced over $1 billion to small businesses but Sharp says that “reloads” distorted the numbers.
“Use of reloads escalates the obligations of the merchant as each reload adds an additional ‘factor’ along with any new funds advanced,” Sharp wrote. “In [one example the reloaded funds are] subject to the factor twice; once when the funds were originally sent and again when they are included in the reload advance. The use of reloads also significantly distorts the calculation of loss rates as the advances are simply refinanced without becoming a loss.”
Sharp concludes that the true end result for Par is a much higher default rate than it lets on to.
And then there’s this
Sharp has repeatedly brought attention to a list of merchants with unusual payment and funding activity. Par countered by saying there are good explanations for each.
Amongst all of this is that company insiders are alleged to have received tens of millions in payments from Par and the Receiver is confident, in part due to DSI’s report, that Par was majorly unprofitable.
“Based on our review to date, it is apparent that [Par] would not have been able to continue to provide payments to investors, or to continue to operate, without additional funds from investors,” Sharp wrote in a December 13th report.
This case is not the first rodeo for Sharp and DSI in the merchant cash advance business. They were also assigned to manage the 1 Global Capital case.
The case is ongoing. The Court recently approved a motion to expand the Receivership estate.
According to the latest status report filed by the Receiver in the Par Funding SEC case:
“The Receiver and his consultants at Development Specialists, Inc. (“DSI”) have re-hired several employees of Par Funding/Full Spectrum Processing, and remain engaged in the process of communicating with Par Funding’s more than 1,300 merchants to reconcile accounts, discuss the status of collections, and to collect account receivables. Through October 29, 2020, the Receivership Entities have combined cash on hand in excess of $42 million, excluding approximately $1.8 million in funds due to Par Funding that are pending release from various ACH processing companies.”
The Receiver has also asked the judge to expand the Receivership to include additional companies including two “related MCA” entities known as Capital Source 2000, Inc. and Fast Advance Funding, LLC.
At this stage of the litigation, a reboot of the company is becoming less and less likely.
A press release/article published on October 13th appears to plead on behalf of the Par defendants, by saying that the “whole process has unfolded mysteriously” and that “the actions of the receiver make it seem like a verdict had already been issued, before due process could take its course.”
Buried deep in the bowels of the salacious news articles coming out about Par Funding, the small business funding company that was raided by the FBI and forced into a court-ordered receivership, is that Par Funding investors probably stand to recover more of their funds than early shareholders of OnDeck.
That’s the early indication based upon a report prepared by DSI, a consulting firm hired by Par’s Receiver. As of the 4th quarter of 2019, Par Funding purportedly had $420 million in MCA receivables and $21.7 million in cash while claiming that only $365 million was still owed to investors.
Could be worse?
At the heart of this case is just how solid Par’s receivables are. The SEC claims that hundreds of millions may be lost but isn’t entirely sure how much. As evidence, they point to more than 2,000 lawsuits Par has filed since inception against defaulted customers and assert the unlikelihood that Par and affiliated individuals could have reasonably claimed to have had a 1% or 2% default rate.
Par in its defense has said that the SEC has made “no attempt to address the successful recovery rate of Par Funding’s litigation or, more fundamentally, how this litigation correlates to a cash over cash default rate.”
Par has made several references to a cash-over-cash default rate in its court papers. In an August 9 filing, attorneys for Par say that the company’s cash-over-cash default rate is “perhaps the best in the industry.”
But even if it is, deBanked spoke with some accountants knowledgeable about these products that said that a cash-over-cash calculation would not normally be a formula one would use to express meaningful portfolio performance. They spoke generally as they did not have knowledge about Par’s books or personal methodologies.
And absent such knowledge of how Par calculated it, Par insists in its papers that it has the right to show that it did not misrepresent the default rate (and that it should have had that opportunity before being placed in receivership in the first place).
It doesn’t help that the SEC has made contradicting arguments about defaults. While implying that 50% of the money is in default ($300 million of $600 million funded is allegedly tied up in lawsuits, they say) they simultaneously state in their Amended Complaint that an analysis of these lawsuits reveals that Par’s “default rate is as high as 10%.”
One has to wonder, if that’s true, if a forced-receivership over such a company was warranted because the SEC thought that their default rate might be as high as… 10%.
A rival alternative business lender, OnDeck, had reported a default rate of 5% in 2013, 18 months before going public at a $1.3 billion valuation. At the time, company CEO Noah Breslow told Forbes that a 5% default rate was “on a par with banks.” [sic]
On OnDeck’s June 30, 2020 balance sheet, the company set an allowance for credit losses at $173.6M against $901.1M in receivables, approximately 19%. That, of course, reflects the impact of COVID, which Par also argues it has had to contend with and that this should be considered in the big picture.
Safely secure from any raids, executives for OnDeck gathered on a conference call in late July to announce that they had been acquired by Enova at a share price of $1.38 that locked in a loss of more than 90% from their IPO ($20). After delving into the details, an analyst for Morgan Stanley offered a bit of praise. “Congratulations on the deal, guys,” he said before pivoting to a mundane question about the impact of economic stimulus on portfolio performance.
That same week, agents for the FBI were preparing to move in on the offices of Par Funding while the SEC filed a civil complaint under seal (and botched it.) Since then narratives have emerged about Par that include guns, jets, houses, data breaches, and alleged verbal exchanges. It’s a lot to take in.
But in the end it remains to be determined how much of Par’s purported $420M in MCA receivables can be collected. Even if for argument’s sake only $42 million were to be recovered (10%), an investor who put $1 into Par in 2014 and $1 into OnDeck stock in 2014 may somehow walk away a lot better by having bet on Par.
While the news media, regulatory agencies, and law enforcement are high-fiving each other over the course of events in the Par Funding saga (a lawsuit, a receivership, an asset freeze, and an arrest), there lies a major problem: The SEC already suffered a major defeat.
On July 28th, rumors of a vague legal “victory” for Par Funding circulated on the DailyFunder forum. The context of this win was unknowable because the case at issue was still under seal and nobody was supposed to be aware of it.
Cue Bloomberg News…
In December 2018, Bloomberg Businessweek published a scandalous story about a Philadelphia-based company named Par Funding. And then not a whole lot happened… that is until Bloomberg Law and Courthousenews.com published a lengthy SEC lawsuit less than two years later that alleged Par along with several entities and individuals had engaged in the unlawful sale of unregistered securities.
At the courthouse in South Florida, those documents were sealed. The public was not supposed to know about them and deBanked could not authenticate the contents of the purported lawsuit through those means. According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the mixup happened when a court clerk briefly unsealed it “by mistake” thus alerting a suspiciously narrow set of news media to the contents. deBanked was the first to publicly point this out.
In court papers, some of the defendants said that they learned of the lawsuit that had been filed under seal on July 24th from “news reports.” Bloomberg Law published a summary of the lawsuit on its website in the afternoon of July 27th.
“It is fortuitous that the Complaint was initially published before it was sealed,” an attorney representing several of the defendants wrote in its court papers. “Otherwise, [The SEC] would have likely accomplished its stealth imposition of so-called temporary’ relief, that would have led to the unnecessary destruction of a legitimate business.”
The day after this, on July 28th, a team of FBI agents raided Par Funding’s Philadelphia offices as well as the home of at least one individual. Rumors about the office raid landed on the DailyFunder forum just hours later, along with links to the inadvertently public SEC lawsuit now circulating on the web.
The New York Post caught wind of the story and published a photo of an arrest that had taken place fifteen years ago, creating confusion about what, if anything, was happening. Nobody, was in fact, arrested.
The SEC lawsuit was finally unsealed on July 31st, along with the revelation that Par Funding and other entities had been placed in a limited receivership pursuant to a Court order issued just days earlier. The receivership order was a massive blow to the SEC. It failed to obtain the most important element of its objective, that is to have the court-ordered right to “to manage, control, operate and maintain the Receivership Estates.” The SEC specifically requested this in its motion papers but was denied this demand and others by the judge who leaned in favor of granting the Receiver document and asset preservation powers rather than complete control of the companies.
The language of the Court order was interpreted differently by the Receiver, who immediately fired all of the company’s employees, locked them out of the office, and then suspended all of the company’s operations which even prevented the inbound flow of cash to the company (of which in the matter of days amounted to nearly $7 million). The SEC did successfully secure an asset freeze order.
In court papers, Par Funding’s attorneys wrote that: “The Receiver’s and SEC’s actions are ruining a business with excellent fundamentals and a strong financial base and essentially putting it into an ineffective liquidation causing huge financial losses. In taking this course of action against a fully operational business, the key fact that has been lost by the SEC, is that their actions are going to unilaterally lead to massive investor defaults.”
The Receiver, in turn, tried to fire Par Funding’s attorneys from representing Par. Par’s attorneys say that the Receiver has communicated to them that it is his view “that he controls all the companies.”
“The SEC is simply trying to drive counsel out of this case, as an adjunct to all the other draconian relief that they insist must be employed to ‘protect the investors,'” Par’s attorneys told the Court. “Due Process is of no regard to the SEC.”
As lawyers on all sides in this mess assert what is best for “investors,” seemingly lost is the collateral damage that is likely to be thrust on Par’s customers. The Philadelphia Inquirer has repeated the SEC’s contention that Par made loans with up to 400% interest. Bloomberg News has called Par a “lending company” whose alleged top executive is a “cash-advance tycoon.”
A review of some of Par’s contracts, however, indicate that they often entered into “recourse factoring” arrangements. “This is a factoring agreement with Recourse,” is a statement that is displayed prominently on the first page of the sample of contracts obtained by deBanked.
Parallels between the business practices of Par Funding and a former competitor, 1 Global Capital, have been raised at several junctures in the SEC litigation thus far. But some sources told deBanked that in recent times, Par has been offering a unique product, one that is likely to create disastrous ripple effects for hundreds or perhaps thousands of small businesses as a result of the Receiver’s actions (even if well-intentioned).
Par offered what’s known as a “Reverse Consolidation,” industry insiders told deBanked. In these instances Par would provide small businesses with weekly injections of capital that were just enough to cover the weekly payments that these small businesses owed to other creditors.
One might understand a consolidation as a circumstance in which a creditor pays off all the outstanding debts of a borrower so that the borrower can focus on a relationship with a single lender. In a “reverse” consolidation, the consolidating lender makes the daily, weekly, or monthly payments to the borrower’s other creditors as they become due rather than all at once. Once the other creditors have been satisfied, the borrower’s only remaining debt (theoretically) is to the consolidating lender.
Par does not appear to have offered loans but sources told deBanked that Par would provide regular weekly capital injections to businesses that could not afford its financial obligations otherwise. Par, in essence, would keep those businesses afloat by making their payments.
That all begs the question, what is going to happen to the numerous businesses when Par breaches its end of the contract by failing to provide the weekly injections?
As the Receiver makes controversial attempts to assert the control it wished it had gotten (but didn’t), the press dazzled the public on Friday with the announcement that an executive at Par Funding had been arrested on something entirely unrelated, an illegal gun possession charge. The FBI discovered the weapons while executing a search warrant on July 28th but waited until August 7th to make the arrest.
It remains to be seen what the 1,200 investors will recover in this case or what will become of the Receiver in the battle for control, but sources tell deBanked that the authorities are all fighting over the wrong thing.
They should all be asking “what’s going to happen to the small businesses when their weekly capital injection doesn’t come in the middle of a pandemic?”
Par Funding’s attorneys at Fox Rothschild filed a strong response with the Court over the apparent actions taken by the Receiver to lock out its employees and suspend ACH debits, the docket shows.
“On the afternoon of July 28, the SEC advised that Mr. Stumphauzer (the appointed receiver) would cause the immediate dismissal of all the employees of the businesses and that no employees of the business would be permitted to enter the premises – leading to over 100 employees being barred from the business premises for the last week despite the fact that thousands of merchants around the country rely on ongoing communication with CBSG to ensure the ongoing viability of their business operations.”
“To date, not a dollar has been taken in by the Receiver to pay investors, and they have not been paid. The Receiver’s and SEC’s actions are ruining a business with excellent fundamentals and a strong financial base and essentially putting it into an ineffective liquidation causing huge financial losses. In taking this course of action against a fully operational business, the key fact that has been lost by the SEC, is that their actions are going to unilaterally lead to massive investor defaults.”
Par’s attorneys are expected to file a more comprehensive opposition by the end of the week.
deBanked did not reach out to any party for comment given the unlikelihood that any would be shared on pending litigation.
New York, October 19, 2021: ByzFunder, the leading non-bank Fintech company, announced a significant upsizing of existing financing from strategic partner Old Hill Partners of up to $40 million. This financing round comes as a substantial increase from Old Hill Partners’ first facility of $12 million in 2020.
In September, ByzFunder closed its record financial performance exceeding $12 million in originations. The finance upsizing from Old Hill enhances ByzFunder’s position as an emerging leader in the business alternative financing space. It provides the assistance needed to advance near-term and long-term priorities in preparation for an anticipated period of significant innovation, growth, and expansion into additional credit tiers.
Ilya Fridman, CEO expressed enthusiasm and confidence about the path ahead; “We have a very exciting journey ahead of us. Our people continue to rally together and outperform with an absolute commitment to excellence, and our platform continues to grow stronger, more advanced, and more capable. With Old Hill, the exceptional team of investors, and upsizing of financial resources that their partnership brings, we can accelerate ByzFunder’s already impressive growth trajectory, expanding our balance sheet to fully service business owners.”
Old Hill Partners Inc. is an alternative asset manager focused on asset-based lending transactions with borrowers seeking $10 to $50 million in financing. The firm structures senior secured debt in the form of term, drawdown, and revolving-to-term facilities of up to four years and loan-to-value ratios in the range of 35% to 85%. Collateral types include pools of loans or leases (specialty finance), receivables, inventory, machinery, and equipment.
“We have been impressed by the quality of ByzFunder’s originations, performance to date, exceptional leadership, disruptive business model, innovative technology, and the overall quality of their operations. We believe the company is well-positioned for further growth, and we are pleased to be part of it,” said Peter Faigl, Senior Portfolio Manager at Old Hill.
ByzFunder NY LLC is a leading non-bank financing company that has successfully provided small to medium-sized businesses with fast and convenient financing alternatives since 2018. ByzFunder combines technology and non-traditional credit algorithms to offer attractive pricing and exceptional customer service to a market not captured by traditional banks.
Attention all Brokers / Lenders & ISO's !!...
par funding, one of the biggest direct lenders in the industry, can offer the following for your business: 1. mca (12 - 15 pts) 2. consolidations (he...
Par Funding - Collateral Advances...
par funding is now offering collateralized advances. we fund up to 80% ltv with an easy submission process for all isos and commissions up to 12 point...
Par Funding Contact Info?...
par funding for a payoff letter? i know the courts appointed someone to handle collecting all the pending assets and they rehired some of par's collection staff, but none of par's nu...
1st position with Par Funding.......
par funding back in june and july. just don't want to throw my merchants to random places. does anyone know who is funding 2nd position behind par?...
par funding merchant:, we appreciate your patience as of late. please be advised, that ryan k. stumphauzer,, esq., was appointed receiver ("receiver") of complete business solutions group, inc., d/b/a