top of page
The LCF Group, Inc.

The LCF Group, Inc. aka LCF

Predatory Funder Review [2026]

SPECIAL MERCHANT REPORT

[LCF = LENDER COMES FIRST]​​

​

 

This investigational review is not opinion-based, but the findings of many direct LCF merchant interactions, review of dozens of LCF MCA contracts, UCC filings, enforcement actions, and analysis of public complaints and litigation records reported through the NYS Unified Court System and other public sources.

 

To understand the deceptive and predatory nature of The LCF Group, Inc. aka LCF aka Last Chance Funding, one must understand its origin and evolution...

 

Nestled in Lake Success, a small bustling village within the Town of N. Hempstead, Nassau County on Long Island’s North Shore, the operation originally known as "Last Chance Funding" appeared, at first glance, to be a modest, discreet financing shop when it initially emerged. Founder, Robert Kleiber, was not a fringe player. He was a career banker.

 

Kleiber began his career at Citigroup, eventually rising to Head of Small Business Banking for North America. Traditional banking was under pressure. Fintech disruption and alternative lending models were rapidly reshaping small-business finance. Kleiber saw this shift firsthand and decided to step out of regulated banking completely into Merchant Cash Advance. 

 

At inception, Last Chance Funding had limited industry relationships and no meaningful institutional pipeline. Instead, it carved out a niche on the outer edge of the Merchant Cash Advance market, focusing almost exclusively on merchants already on the brink of major financial distress. These businesses other funders would not touch very high-risk, cash-starved, and desperate.

 

Under normal circumstances, this underwriting model would be catastrophic. But for Kleiber, merchant failure was not a risk it was an opportunity. The business model was never built around long-term merchant success or renewal economics. It was built around LCF enforcement over performance control.

 

LCF contracts were repeatedly revised and regularly engineered to keep up with ever evolving new regulation by "form", manufacture defaults, not prevent them. Merchants were approved into structures where default fees, penalties, and rigid payment terms quickly overwhelmed the business operating cash flow. When merchants inevitably struggled, the solution offered was not relief but recalculated lower flat unreconciled payments or additional funding, ostensibly to “help,” yet primarily designed to service accumulated fees and charges.

 

By the time any of these merchants realized what was happening to them, they were often contractually and psychologically trapped believing LCF was doing them good while deeper leverage was quietly being applied.

 

LCF abandoned one of the core features of a legitimate MCA: true reconciliation tied to receivables performance. Payments were treated as flat, guaranteed obligations, stripped of real-time adjustment functionally converting the product into a high-interest usury loan, not a purchase of future receivables.

 

This was NOT accidental

 

The contracts were structured to prioritize "enforcement over performance," allowing LCF to bypass any true reconciliation entirely while maintaining the outward label of an MCA breaking "form over substance" law. The result was a system that relied on psychological pressure, contractual overreach, and procedural imbalance. When a merchant “acted up” questioned balances, requested reconciliation, or missed a payment LCF moved swiftly. Immediate defaults were declared. UCC liens were activated, accounts restrained, and court summonses filed, often in merchant-unfriendly venues. These enforcement actions were frequently triggered by defaults that LCF itself manufactured through rigid flat payment demands inconsistent with true MCA principles.

 

As this model proved profitable, Kleiber expanded. Sometime after 2020, Last Chance Funding was formally rebranded as "LCF". The strategy was no longer experimental it was massively scalable.

 

LCF has established operations at 3000 Marcus Avenue, The Atrium, a large commercial complex with an infamous legacy. Coincidentally or not, the same complex once housed Stratton Oakmont, the firm at the center of the Wolf of Wall Street scandal. Like its notorious predecessor, LCF’s growth was fueled by aggressive collections, legal intimidation, and industrial-scale UCC enforcement.

 

By this stage, the operation was no longer niche. It was systematic.

 

LCF "The Rebrand" is on Steroids & Thriving in 2026

​

The LCF Group, Inc. remains overly active and continues to fund uncompliant in the MCA space, operating under the LCF name and through affiliated entities.

 

Direct merchant interactions and public records reflect:

 

  • Continued rigid flat payment not aligned with true business receivables

  • Blanket and overreaching UCC lien enforcement on merchant accounts

  • Aggressive Cash App, PayPal, Stripe, Square, Venmo processing holds

  • Collection and harassment tactics that mimic guaranteed loan retrievals

  • "Daily" litigation activity against merchants across multiple jurisdictions

  • Ongoing "UCC filings" and enforcement actions against its merchants

  • Substantial volumes of merchant complaints alleging disputed balances

  • Misapplied payments, refusal to reconcile, and UCC lien enforcements

  • A continued reliance on court leverage rather than negotiated resolution

  • High interest usury type loans masquerading as merchant cash advance

  • "No show" online arbitration award enforcement via judicial intervention  

 

While marketing materials emphasize fast funding and “working capital solutions,” the operational footprint tells a different story one centered on enforcement, not partnership. LCF’s evolution has not been toward transparency or reform, but toward refinement of a collections-first model, where contractual control outweighs merchant viability. (LCF) = Lender Comes First. Always!

​

The LCF story is not about a few bad deals or isolated disputes. It reflects a deliberate architecture one designed to monetize distress, weaponize paperwork, and extract value through legal pressure rather than business performance. Merchants encountering LCF today are not facing an early-stage funder learning the ropes. They are facing a fully matured enforcement operation, backed by years of contract iteration and litigation experience.

 

Understanding that reality is the first step in defending against it. Most LCF default judgements transpire over technicalities not law, they are "No-Show Defaults" as the merchant defendant did not answer the complaint nor offer a defense. Merchants are financially and mentally devasted when served a funder court summons unwillingly falling into the hands of designed pressure and decide to renegotiate assuming the cost of an expensive NYS lawyer unaffordable.

 

The game has changed with recent NYS court rulings that pierced the ever-elusive veil funders have relied on for years avoiding "form over substance".

​​

The No-Show Default Rule:

"The no-show default rule in court proceedings occurs when a defendant fails to appear in court or does not file a timely answer to the plaintiff's complaint. This can lead to a default judgement in favor of the plaintiff, allowing the court to decide the case without further evidence from the defendant. The process typically involves the plaintiff filing a motion for default judgement, which the court may schedule for a hearing. If the defendant is found to be in default, they may contest the judgement by filing a motion to set it aside, providing they can demonstrate a valid reason for their absence."

 

Courts may take a complaint at face value and award the funder without investigating the underlying contract with a no-show default judgement. This allows funders powerful court orders used to enforce liens on merchant assets without accountability for any wrongdoings whatsoever. Funders place their jurisdictions local specifically making it harder on merchants' cross country to appear leading to easy default judgements and enforced gains.

 

But what if a merchant could answer the complaint effectively for a reasonable cost and challenge the funders allegations against their business from the comfort of their home state? Now they can! McDONNELL HOPKINS has developed an innovative cost-effective turn-key merchant solution that can help you gain resolve.​

​

If you are involved in an LCF MCA contract experiencing any of the above-mentioned enforcement over performance tactics get in touch with us below.

 

McDONNELL HOPKINS helps you beat the bully! Fight back with our proprietary solutions and AI forensic analysis reverse engineering skills.

​

Learn More> Why Defaults Not Legality Decide Most MCA Cases​

​

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.​

bottom of page