Legal Briefs
National Alliance of Commercial Loan Brokers LLC Back in Roglieri’s Hands
February 5, 2026The United States Bankruptcy Court ordered the Roglieri Estate return its interest in the National Alliance of Commercial Loan Brokers LLC back to Roglieri himself. The order was dated January 30, 2026. That interest includes all the assets and liabilities attached to the National Alliance of Commercial Loan Brokers LLC. The Trustee’s reasoning was that management over the business had become burdensome to the Roglieri Estate.
Nearly two years ago, Roglieri declared in a bankruptcy filing that National Alliance of Commercial Loan Brokers LLC (often referred to as NACLB) was valued at $1 million.
Roglieri is currently imprisoned at the Rensselaer County Correctional Facility. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy this past November. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 11 and he is facing up to 20 years in prison.
Industry’s Mystery Fraudster Extradited to the United States
January 30, 2026A primary suspect in the small business finance industry’s long running mysterious fraud has been extradited to the United States. Saul Shalev, indicted this past August under seal (and unsealed in October) had eluded authorities for years but was finally arrested in Spain. On January 23, 2026, he was extradited to the United States and appeared before a US Magistrate Judge.
Shalev faces a nine-count indictment.
Between approximately December 2019 and November 2022, Shalev defrauded more than 20 small and medium-sized businesses (“SMBs”). As part of the scheme, Shalev obtained information about commercial loans received by the SMBs and offered the SMBs the opportunity to refinance the loans or to obtain additional financing, either from the original lender or from a new lender. Shalev, using stolen identities and making fraudulent representations, acted as a broker between SMBs and potential lenders. After obtaining new or additional financing for an SMB from a commercial lender, Shalev provided fraudulent payoff instructions to the SMB with respect to a prior loan, causing the SMB to send all or part of the loan proceeds to an account he controlled. Shalev also fraudulently received a commission from the lender.
Factor Gives Update on “Killing MCAs” in Texas
January 9, 2026Cole Harmonson, CEO of Dare Capital and a board member for the American Factoring Association, posted an update last month on the recent Texas MCA legislation and campaign to “fight the MCA cronies.” It appeared on the Commercial Factor’s magazine website. You can read it here.
Harmonson shared his strategy on how to kill MCAs in Texas, which focuses mainly on the DACA component of securing a first position: “If you get the Springing DACA, then the bank will not give anyone else (i.e., an MCA) a DACA, and therefore no MCA can legally sweep your customer’s account, thereby killing the MCAs in Texas,” he wrote.
Harmonson had previously shared that the factoring industry had been responsible for the MCA legislation in Texas and that it served as a “blueprint,” suggesting that a similar legal framework could be attempted in other states.
Indictment in the Small Business Finance Industry’s “Long Running Mysterious Fraud”
December 22, 2025
There has been a major break in the case of the industry’s Long Running Mysterious Fraud, an indictment. Less than a year after deBanked ran a story about a sophisticated scheme employed to steal millions from merchants, funders, and lenders through a network of stolen identities and cryptocurrency exchanges, a criminal complaint was quietly filed under seal on February 24, 2025 against an individual named Saul Shalev with addresses in Brooklyn and Israel. He is currently thirty-six years old. On August 20, 2025 that complaint progressed to a sealed indictment and on October 3, 2025 all the filings were finally made public.
Shalev may still be at large. He has dual American/Israeli passports. The original criminal complaint states that he traveled to Israel in February 2019 and had not returned to the United States since. IP addresses, email accounts, and other internet data were used by law enforcement in its investigation. The criminal complaint says that the scheme was still going on earlier this year and that more than 25 victims of the scheme have already been identified.
Shalev, who is innocent until proven guilty, is charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering, Aggravated Identity Theft, and Aiding and Abetting.
Brokers and Funders – Are You Ready for Changes to California Law Effective January 1, 2026?
December 20, 2025Bob Gage is a partner in Hudson Cook, LLP’s Michigan office. Kate Fisher is a partner in Hudson Cook, LLP’s Maryland office. https://www.hudsoncook.com/
California has a new law, California S.B. 362, impacting how brokers and funders communicate with merchants starting on January 1, 2026. The new law adds provisions to California’s Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (“CFDL”) which became effective in 2023 and established the first law requiring commercial financers and brokers (described in the CFDL as “providers”) to provide cost-of-funding disclosures to applicants. Here is an overview of what you need to know:
Don’t Say “Factor Rate”
Under S.B. 362, commercial financing providers are not allowed to use the term “rate” in a manner that is likely to deceive a recipient. A “recipient” is generally a person who receives an offer of commercial financing of $500,000 or less. The preamble to the new law (which is not part of the law but informs how the regulator will approach enforcement) gives the following example of what California means by likely to deceive:
- Describing the price of credit as “X% fee rate” or “Y% factor rate,” particularly when those “rates” diverge materially from the APR.
A factor rate will almost always be much lower than any APR. This means that California has effectively banned use of the term “factor rate” when communicating with applicants for loans, sales-based financing, merchant cash advance and yes – even factoring transactions. It is probably safe to talk in terms of “factor rates” internally. But, starting on January 1, 2026 – saying “factor rate” to a California recipient can get you into hot water.
Don’t Say “Interest Rate” Unless Referring to an Annual Simple Interest Rate
S.B. 362 also prohibits commercial financing providers from using the term “interest” in a manner that is likely to deceive a recipient. The preamble to the new law gives the following examples of what California means by likely to deceive:
- Describing the price of credit as “simple interest” when referring to a nonannual rate as opposed to a noncompounding annual rate that a reasonable person would understand “simple interest” to mean; and
- Describing the price of credit as an “interest rate” when describing a daily, weekly, or monthly rate and not an annual rate; and
This potentially impacts providers who describe the cost of commercial credit using a daily or weekly rate and describing that rate as “interest”. For example, loan agreements that use a daily, weekly, or monthly “interest rate” may need to be modified.
California Requires Brokers and Funders to Remind Recipients of the Disclosed “APR” or “Estimated APR”
S.B. 362 complicates post-offer negotiations between providers and recipients by requiring redisclosure of the APR or Estimated APR calculation already required by the CFDL. It does this by adding the following new provision to the CFDL:
- After extending a specific offer to a potential recipient, whenever a provider states a charge, pricing metric, or financing amount to the potential recipient for that specific offer during an application process for commercial financing, the provider shall also state the annual percentage rate of that commercial financing offer by using the term “annual percentage rate” or the acronym “APR.”
What this means for providers:
- The APR reminder requirement applies “during an application process.” The term “application process” is not defined, but it probably does not end until the recipient receives funding or the provider definitively declines to proceed with the financing.
- During the “application process,” anytime a provider communicates with the recipient and states a charge, pricing metric, or financing amount, the provider must remind the merchant of the APR or Estimated APR for that offer. Here are examples of how this might impact brokers and funders:
|
New York Already has a Similar Law
New York already has similar requirements in its Commercial Financing Disclosure Law. See 23 N.Y. Admin. Code Section 600.1(f)(1). Accordingly, brokers and funders should implement these practices in New York as well.
This is only a high-level overview and not legal advice. If you have questions regarding how these laws impact your business, please contact knowledgeable counsel.
Bob Gage is a partner in Hudson Cook, LLP’s Michigan office. Kate Fisher is a partner in Hudson Cook, LLP’s Maryland office. https://www.hudsoncook.com/
Scott Pearson Is Retiring, But His Influence on Alternative Finance Will Remain
December 9, 2025In the footnotes of virtually every legal brief detailing merchant cash advance history is Richard B. Clark v. AdvanceMe. Filed as a class action in 2008 by a restaurateur in Orange County, California, Clark alleged that the merchant cash advance he received was really a usurious loan. When the case settled in 2011 with AdvanceMe admitting no wrongdoing and agreeing to make changes, industry observers were quick to recognize that the outcome paved the way for how to operate an MCA business—then a nascent concept—in a reliably compliant manner. The case even became a front-page story for The Green Sheet, a top trade publication for the payments industry, with the headline A New Chapter Opens for Merchant Cash Advance.
“In the class action’s aftermath, many alternative funding providers indelibly reshaped the way they do business,” the story began. “And the ripple effect has spawned a new wave of innovation in this sector with seemingly unlimited possibilities and merchants as the designated beneficiaries.”
speaks at deBanked CONNECT San Diego in 2023
The case also brought further notability to Scott Pearson, the attorney representing AdvanceMe for Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP at the time.
“I think a lot of people thought that after the case was resolved, it demonstrated that the product was viable,” Pearson recently told deBanked, “and a lot of other companies came into that space.”
Pearson had already established himself in this area of law after defending a class action brought by Bistro Executive in 2004 against Rewards Network over similar allegations, which also resulted in a settlement and no admission of wrongdoing. The outcomes of both offered guidance on how to clear up language that might otherwise appear ambiguous in an MCA agreement, such as how to establish that the transactions are not absolutely repayable.
“Now you see that language everywhere. Every agreement has that same language in it, pretty much saying that, essentially, if you go out of business or if you file for bankruptcy, nothing’s owed because you’re buying a slice of the future revenue stream with an MCA,” Pearson said.
Pearson has worked on well over a hundred class actions over the course of a legal career that has spanned more than thirty years, but those two cases are especially remembered in the small business finance industry and have led to many new client relationships. In some ways that was just the beginning. Today, he’s a Partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a firm with 450 attorneys and consultants that was founded 60 years ago in Van Nuys, California. Pearson has been very active on matters of compliance and regulatory enforcement over the last few years at Manatt where he leads the Consumer Financial Services group. At the end of December 2025, however, he’s hanging up the briefcase and retiring. His impact will be missed. As a regular on the conference speaker circuit and still one of the most highly sought-after attorneys in the space, his influence has been very beneficial to those around him.
Steve Denis, Executive Director of the Small Business Finance Association, said, “Scott has been an invaluable asset to the industry, a lawyer whose insight, integrity, and foresight have helped shape how we all navigate an evolving regulatory landscape. His steady and unmatched expertise have guided countless companies, and his support for the Association and for me personally has been nothing short of extraordinary.”
Lindsey Rohan, President of the Alternative Finance Bar Association, said, “Scott has been a leader in the legal community within this industry for many years. His willingness to take a leading role in establishing best practices has had a significant impact on alternative financing, and we are all better off as a result.”
How Pearson got to where he is today was a combination of hard work and the opportunity to work in an evolving area of law.
“I grew up in Arizona. I went to school in Southern California, and I think being a lawyer was something that was pretty natural for me,” Pearson said. “I was on the debate team in high school and college, for example, and I really wanted to be a trial lawyer.”
He noted that he did not really become a trial lawyer per se, but rather more of a litigator, since the vast majority of his cases were resolved before trial. Fortunately, he did get the opportunity to cut his teeth in a real battle.
“I did a six-week jury trial in New Hampshire in a trade secrets case that was all about electronic evidence and the destruction of electronic evidence, and that case was really a big thing for my career. Probably a lot of my fondest memories are from that case,” he said. “I think just being in a long trial like that is being in combat—not that I’ve been in combat—but it’s kind of like where you just build these bonds with the people on the trial team that will just be there forever.”
In the beginning of his legal career, Pearson worked under two top lawyers, one of whom handled a lot of smaller cases for banks. That provided valuable experience in financial services. He also worked on class actions for a long time until the landscape for those eventually shifted.
“I think when the Supreme Court decided that class action waivers were enforceable, that really had an impact on the amount of class action litigation out there, so that’s when I started doing a lot more enforcement work,” Pearson said.
Compliance work organically followed since he had an established reputation in the subject matter. Being in his shoes has taken tremendous effort, however, one that required six or seven days a week of his time throughout his career. When he was younger, he and his colleagues joked about looking forward to the weekends because it meant they could wear casual clothes to the office. The stereotype about lawyers working obscene hours is all too real.
“We would pull multiple all-nighters, like literally be up for two or three days in a row cranking things out,” Pearson recalled. “And maybe sleep on the floor of the office for an hour.”
The “thrill of battle,” as he termed it, made it easier to tolerate, but he also enjoyed working with people he admired, respected, and learned from. And he didn’t just defend, he also played offense, most notably by playing forward for multiple ice hockey teams in whatever downtime he managed to muster up.
Pearson recounts, “We had a bunch of guys from my law school class studying for the bar exam together, and what we did was we would go to a review course in the morning, then we’d go to the library and do all our homework, and then we went and played roller hockey in this pond in Santa Monica that had this big fountain that had been drained and the edges of the fountain could be like boards.”
One of his friends, who hailed from Minnesota, said he had to take his roller game to the ice, a challenge Pearson accepted and stuck with.
“I used to get up at like five in the morning and go take private lessons learning how to skate a lot better and how to play before I went to work, before I had kids,” Pearson recalled. After a private coach and several clinics later, he’s made the game a lifelong hobby, one among others such as fishing, golfing, and cooking. He still plays in an ice hockey league in the present day.
Despite his departure, Manatt will remain a powerhouse in the financial services space. The firm added the highly regarded Gianna Ravenscroft as a partner this past October. Pearson also noted many distinguished individuals at the firm, including Partners Charles Washburn, Bryan Schneider, and Andrew Morrison, just to name a few, as well as strong surrounding team players including an associate named Eric Knight.
Manatt describes itself as a “multidisciplinary, integrated national professional services firm known for quality and an extraordinary commitment to clients.” Pearson became a partner there in 2019 following partner titles at Ballard Spahr, Seyfarth Shaw, and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, where he began and spent most of his career starting in 1994.
Manatt’s site says that “while most of [Pearson’s] clients are banks, fintechs, and other financial services companies (including institutional investors), he also does a substantial amount of work in real estate, sports and entertainment, retail, and other industries,” and that he’s “been repeatedly recognized as one of the top consumer finance lawyers in the United States, with clients in anonymous interviews praising his responsiveness and legal acumen.”
“Scott’s contributions to the alternative finance industry have been invaluable,” said Christopher Murray, Managing Member at Murray Legal, who also practices in the small business finance industry and is familiar with his work. “His knowledge of regulatory compliance and litigation is unmatched. It has been a true privilege to work with him and a pleasure to work alongside him. His retirement is a loss for the commercial finance space, but well earned.”
On matters of compliance, Pearson explained to deBanked that even a small startup financial services company should take some basic steps toward compliance—things like carefully drafting agreements and providing proper training for senior management. And as a company gets bigger, it requires a continuous and larger investment into compliance—real compliance. Some founders and executives, for example, can overestimate their preparedness and require professional help to get where they need to be. He’s seen that before. If there’s anything he hopes people take to heart in his coming absence, however, it’s this: remember that your customers are people too.
“When you think about someone on the other side of the phone, think about it being your grandmother or somebody who is maybe a little vulnerable,” Pearson advised. “I think that if you treat people well and if you’re nice to people, I think that ends up really benefiting your business. And I think the more companies that really commit to that, the better off they’ll be because compliance really flows from that basic concept of ‘do the right thing for people.'”
RadioShack Owners Accused of Running a Ponzi Scheme
September 25, 2025When the RadioShack brand was acquired in 2020 by Retail Ecommerce Ventures, LLC, the company shifted gears into a new direction, cryptocurrency. Using Twitter, now X, as its main base of messaging, the RadioShack account rapidly became outwardly controversial and hostile in order to generate eyeballs and attention. It was quite successful and piqued my curiosity to the point that it ended up on deBanked in 2021.
At the time the company said “RadioShack DeFi is focused on the early majority. It will become the first to market with a 100 year old brand name that’s recognized in virtually all 190+ countries in the world.”
When I actually inquired about information on its new DeFi platform, all I received was a digital coupon for a boombox…
I signed up to learn more about @RadioShack ‘s DeFi project and instead got offered a discount on a new boombox. pic.twitter.com/0O3i8llgyL
— Seán Murray (@financeguy74) December 30, 2021
But the party seemed to come to an end and the account stopped tweeting on November 17, 2022.
Why'd @RadioShack go dark after Nov 17, 2022? They were one of the most epic crypto troll accounts on twitter.
— Seán Murray (@financeguy74) February 15, 2023
Now, according to the SEC, it has been revealed that the owners of RadioShack and other defunct brand names had been conducting a ponzi scheme precisely through November 2022.
Taino Adrian Lopez, Alexander Farhang Mehr, and Maya Rose Burkenroad, were charged this week for running a $112M ponzi scheme. Apparently, none of the household brand names they acquired were generating any profits, but they claimed to investors that they were in order to raise capital. “Consequently, in order to pay interest, dividends and maturing note payments, Defendants resorted to using a combination of loans from outside lenders, merchant cash advances, money raised from new and existing investors, and transfers from other portfolio companies to cover obligations,” the SEC claims.
In addition to RadioShack, the accused operated Brahms, Linens ‘N Things, Modell’s, Stein Mart, and Pier 1 Imports.
MCA Reconciliation Can’t be Reviewed as “Illusory” if the Merchant Didn’t Even Engage in the Reconciliation Procedure
September 25, 2025In Apollo Funding Co v Dave Reilly Construction, LLC, The Appellate Division of the Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York, reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. For background, Apollo purchased DRC’s future receivables, DRC breached the agreement, Apollo sued and moved for summary judgment, and DRC entered a defense that the agreement was actually an unlawful usurious loan. Based on DRC’s defense the lower court denied Apollo’s summary judgment motion.
Upon Apollo’s appeal in the Second Department, the Court found: “the plaintiff established that the transaction set forth in the agreement was not a loan. The terms of the agreement specifically provided for adjustments to the daily payments by DRC to the plaintiff based on changes to DRC’s daily receipts. Concomitantly, as the amount of the daily payments could change, the terms of the agreement were not finite, and because DRC did not engage in the agreement’s reconciliation procedure, our review of the claim that the process was illusory is precluded [emphasis ours]. Moreover, no contractual provision existed establishing that a declaration of bankruptcy would constitute an event of default.”
The Second Department ruled that Apollo had “otherwise established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.”
The original case ID in the New York Supreme Court was 035156/2023. The Appellate Division’s Decision and Order was issued September 24, 2025.
