Everest Business Funding Lawsuit: EBF Holdings v. Emek Renovation and Other Dockets

Everest Business Funding lawsuit searches usually find private EBF Holdings collection cases, not FTC or AG enforcement. The 2025 Emek decision and next steps.

Updated 2026-10-30

Home · News · Everest Business Funding lawsuit

By Anonymous MCA industry contributor Research, writing and editorial review · MCA sales background

Searches for Everest Business Funding lawsuit usually surface private commercial collection and contract disputes involving EBF Holdings, LLC d/b/a Everest Business Funding, not a Federal Trade Commission or New York Attorney General industry-wide enforcement action like the public Yellowstone Capital lawsuit track. This page summarizes what a few identifiable public records establish, and what a single decision does not prove about your file.

Editorial update: 2026-10-30 · Desk research of published court opinions and public docket indexes only. Not legal advice, not affiliated with Everest Business Funding / EBF Holdings.

This page covers the court and regulatory record only. For who Everest Business Funding is, what it sells, how it collects and what merchants report, read our Everest Business Funding company profile.

Quick answer

Question	What the public record supports on this page
Who is the litigating entity?	Filings commonly name EBF Holdings, LLC doing business as Everest Business Funding
Is there an FTC / NY AG “Everest refund” program?	No equivalent public FTC redress or NY AG debt-cancellation program for Everest is described in the sources checked for this page
Notable published NY decision	EBF Holdings, LLC v. Emek Renovation Corp. (Kings County, Apr. 11, 2025): court denied a CPLR 3215(i) default-judgment application because the settlement predated the lawsuit
Does that denial wipe Everest balances?	No. It addresses a specific procedural request, not a finding that every Everest obligation is invalid

If you were served, start with the lawsuit hubs: Merchant cash advance lawsuit and Served with an MCA lawsuit: first 30 days.

Why Everest lawsuit results look different from Yellowstone

Yellowstone Capital appears in agency enforcement materials (FTC settlement/refunds; later NY AG settlement with debt cancellation for covered Yellowstone entities). Everest / EBF Holdings results more often look like:

Funder-as-plaintiff suits against a merchant and guarantor for alleged breach of a revenue-based financing agreement or a later settlement
Occasional merchant-side defenses or counter-narratives (for example, arguing a product was a usurious loan), which are allegations or pleadings, not automatic wins
Procedural rulings that turn on how a judgment was requested, not on a public declaration that MCA products are unlawful industry-wide

Treat headlines and docket snippets as case-specific. An order in one merchant’s file does not set your settlement percentage, defense, or deadline.

Case spotlight: EBF Holdings v. Emek Renovation Corp. (2025)

On April 11, 2025, the Supreme Court, Kings County, decided EBF Holdings, LLC d/b/a Everest Business Funding v. Emek Renovation Corp. and Emil Krajewski (Index No. 505235/2024; 2025 NY Slip Op 50535(U), Rivera, J.).

According to the published opinion:

Plaintiff commenced the action on February 21, 2024, alleging breach of a November 27, 2023 settlement agreement (alleged settlement total $49,869.99, with later claimed balances and attorney’s fees described in the complaint summary)
Plaintiff moved, unopposed, for a default judgment under CPLR 3215(i) for failure to comply with that settlement
The court held that CPLR 3215(i) applies when a stipulation of settlement is made after an action is commenced. Because the agreement here predated filing, that shortcut was unavailable
The motion for a CPLR 3215(i) default judgment was denied

What this decision does not establish

It does not hold that the underlying settlement or original advance was void
It does not award damages, cancel balances, or set a “typical” Everest settlement rate
It does not pause deadlines in a different Everest suit against another merchant
It does not replace reading your summons, contract, guarantees, payment history, and any later settlement papers

Our Everest Business Funding company profile flags the same procedural limit.

Other public dockets (illustrative, not exhaustive)

Public indexes also list other matters naming EBF Holdings / Everest Business Funding. Examples checked for context, not as a complete litigation census:

EBF Holdings, LLC d/b/a Everest Business Funding v. Dechoker, LLC et al., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-02325 (removed from New York County Supreme Court in March 2023). Public docket entries show scheduling and a court order referring the case to the court-annexed mediation program. Defendants’ answer in PACER-accessible materials raised usury / “loan disguised as” characterizations, pleadings, not a published merits judgment summarized here. The docket then shows a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice and without costs filed July 6, 2023, so the case ended without a merits ruling.
Separate commercial dockets appear in state and federal indexes over time (collection suits against merchants/guarantors, and occasional disputes involving EBF as a defendant). Filing alone does not prove the outcome.

We did not run a full multi-jurisdiction search of every county clerk. Absence of a case from this page is not evidence it does not exist.

If Everest (or EBF Holdings) is suing you: practical checklist

Calendar the real response deadline from the summons/complaint and proof of service. Missing it can allow default even while you research online
Match the plaintiff name on the caption to your contract, ACH descriptors, and any assignment notices (legal name vs. DBA)
Gather the stack: original agreement, personal guaranty, amendments, later settlements, payment history, UCC search results, and every court paper
Do not assume Yellowstone-style relief applies. Everest is not the covered Yellowstone entity list described in OAG materials
Coordinate settlement talk with counsel/docket obligations. Negotiating does not automatically stop a court calendar

Related how-to pages on this site:

FAQ

Is there an “Everest Business Funding lawsuit” settlement I can join?

Not in the sense of the public Yellowstone FTC refund or NY AG debt-cancellation programs described on our Yellowstone Capital lawsuit page. Everest-related results in the sources above are largely private commercial cases. Any settlement of your file would be case-specific.

Does the Emek Renovation decision mean Everest cannot win judgments?

No. The court denied one procedural path (CPLR 3215(i)) because the settlement predated the lawsuit. Other judgment paths, other cases, and other facts can produce different results.

Everest sued my company: should I ignore ACH pulls?

Do not change remittances based on a news headline alone. Changing payments can affect default clauses, settlement leverage, and bank relationships. Get jurisdiction-specific advice on your papers first.

Can a settlement company or attorney help while a suit is pending?

Sometimes parties still negotiate after filing, but court deadlines continue unless formally changed. Compare written scopes and fees. See attorneys vs settlement companies and our MCA settlement overview.

Where else should I read on this site?

Start with the merchant cash advance lawsuit hub, and MCA debt relief options. For company comparisons, see reviews.

Related funder lawsuit pages

Everest Business Funding appears alongside other frequent New York filers in our MCA lawsuit tracker.

Sources checked October 27, 2026

Desk research only. We did not contact Everest / EBF Holdings for this update, and we did not review any merchant’s private claim file. This is not a complete litigation search or a prediction about your case.

New York Courts / NY Slip Opinion: EBF Holdings, LLC v. Emek Renovation Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 50535(U) (Apr. 11, 2025)
Justia republication of the same opinion
Justia docket index: EBF Holdings v. Dechoker, S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02325 (public index snapshot; verify live PACER for status)
CourtListener docket: EBF Holdings v. Dechoker, 1:23-cv-02325 (stipulation of voluntary dismissal, July 6, 2023)
PacerMonitor docket: EBF Holdings v. Dechoker, 1:23-cv-02325
Internal contrast page: Yellowstone Capital lawsuit

Takeaway

Treat “Everest Business Funding lawsuit” as a search for private commercial litigation involving EBF Holdings, not an automatic industry refund. Read the caption, the deadline, and the actual order. The 2025 Emek opinion shows why a particular default-judgment shortcut failed; it does not cancel other Everest balances or set a win rate.

Talk to our featured first provider

Request a free consultation from Coastal Debt Resolve. Confirm fees, service scope, and any legal representation in writing.

Get a free review

Also comparing providers? Read our Business Debt Insider review, and confirm any engagement terms directly with BDI.