CAN Capital has operated in the alternative lending space since 1998, longer than most of its competitors have existed. That longevity does not insulate it from the complaints that define the merchant cash advance industry. Business owners who accepted funding from CAN Capital report many of the same structural problems that appear across MCA providers, and several that reflect the company’s particular approach to collections, reconciliation, and contract terms.
Daily Debits That Ignore Revenue Fluctuations
The most persistent complaint involves daily ACH withdrawals that bear no relationship to actual business performance. A merchant cash advance, by its contractual definition, represents the purchase of future receivables. The repayment amount should fluctuate with revenue. When a restaurant has a slow Tuesday in February, the debit should reflect that decline.
Business owners report that CAN Capital’s daily withdrawals remain fixed regardless of sales volume. The debit arrives at the same amount on a record day and on a day when the register barely opens. That rigidity transforms what the contract describes as a flexible revenue share into something that functions, in practice, as a fixed daily loan payment. Courts in New York have examined precisely this distinction when determining whether an MCA constitutes a disguised loan subject to usury protections.
The operational burden falls hardest during seasonal downturns, when the business generates less revenue but the withdrawal amount persists unchanged.
Factor Rates and the True Cost of Capital
CAN Capital, like most MCA providers, quotes pricing as a factor rate rather than an annual percentage rate. A factor rate of 1.3 on a $100,000 advance means the business repays $130,000. That sounds manageable until one calculates the effective annualized cost over a repayment period of six months. The resulting figure can reach well into triple digits.
The factor rate is a number designed to feel small. The annualized cost is a number designed never to be calculated.
Business owners complain that they understood the factor rate at the time of signing but did not appreciate the velocity of repayment. When $130,000 must be returned within one hundred and eighty days through daily debits, the actual cost of that capital becomes visible only in the checking account, not on the term sheet.
Reconciliation Requests That Go Unanswered
Legitimate MCA agreements include a reconciliation provision. If the merchant’s revenue declines, the merchant can request that daily payment amounts be adjusted to reflect actual receivables. Reconciliation is the mechanism that distinguishes a purchase of future receivables from a loan.
Multiple business owners have reported that CAN Capital either delays reconciliation requests indefinitely or denies them without substantive explanation. One owner described submitting three months of bank statements and point of sale reports demonstrating a forty percent revenue decline, only to receive a form response indicating that the current payment schedule would continue.
When reconciliation is illusory, the entire structure of the MCA agreement becomes suspect. Courts evaluating whether to reclassify an MCA as a loan consider whether the reconciliation provision functions in practice or exists only on paper.
Stacking and Renewal Pressure
The fourth complaint concerns renewal pressure. Business owners report receiving renewal offers from CAN Capital before the current advance is fully repaid. The new advance pays off the remaining balance of the existing one, and the merchant receives a smaller net funding amount while incurring an entirely new factor rate on a larger total obligation.
This is the stacking pattern. It creates a compounding debt structure where each successive advance delivers less capital but demands more in total repayment. A business that began with a $100,000 advance may find itself, after three renewals, owing a cumulative amount that dwarfs the original funding while having received diminishing net proceeds with each cycle.
The renewal conversation often occurs when the business is most vulnerable, roughly halfway through repayment, when cash flow is strained and the daily debits have become a burden. The timing is not accidental.
Personal Guarantee Enforcement
CAN Capital’s agreements include personal guarantees, and business owners report that the company pursues those guarantees with substantial vigor when the business defaults. The complaint is not that personal guarantees exist. Most commercial lending involves some form of personal commitment. The complaint is that the guarantee was presented as a formality during the sales process and treated as a primary collection tool after default.
A business owner who signed a personal guarantee believing it would apply only in cases of fraud or bad faith discovers, upon default, that the guarantee covers the full remaining balance plus fees. Personal assets, including bank accounts and real property, become subject to collection. The gap between what was implied during funding and what is enforced during default defines this complaint.
UCC Liens Filed Without Adequate Explanation
CAN Capital files UCC liens as part of its standard funding process. A UCC filing creates a public record of the funder’s interest in the business’s assets. Business owners complain that the existence and implications of the UCC lien were not adequately explained prior to funding, and that the lien remains in place long after the advance has been repaid.
A lingering UCC lien can impair the business’s ability to obtain conventional financing, sell assets, or enter into new credit arrangements. The process for removing a UCC lien after repayment should be straightforward. Business owners report that obtaining a termination statement from CAN Capital requires repeated follow-up and, in some cases, legal intervention.
These six complaints share a common thread. The terms described during the funding process diverge from the experience of repayment. That divergence is where legal exposure begins for the funder and where legal remedies become available for the merchant. If your experience with CAN Capital reflects any of these patterns, a consultation with an MCA defense attorney is the appropriate first step, and it carries no cost.
Related Articles:
