MCA Settlement Reviews
Menu
MCA Settlement Reviews

Kalamata Capital Group Lawsuit: A.C.S.A. Transportation, Squad, Aaction Power and Arecosta (2026)

Kalamata Capital Group lawsuit searches usually find private RPA collection suits in New York courts, not FTC or AG enforcement. What those orders do not prove.

Updated

Home · News · Kalamata Capital Group lawsuit

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

Searches for Kalamata Capital Group lawsuit usually surface private commercial suits by Kalamata Capital Group, LLC to enforce Revenue Purchase Agreements (RPAs) / receivables purchases against merchants and guarantors in New York Supreme Court. That footprint is different from the agency-enforcement track described on the Yellowstone Capital lawsuit page. This article summarizes four published trial-court opinions (A.C.S.A. Transportation, Squad, Aaction Power Equipment and Arecosta), and it flags what each order does not prove about a different contract.

Editorial update: 2026-10-30 · Desk research of published New York Slip Opinions only. Not legal advice, not affiliated with Kalamata Capital Group, LLC.

This page covers the court record only. For who Kalamata Capital Group is, what it sells and what merchants report, read our Kalamata Capital Group company profile.

Quick answer

QuestionWhat the public record supports on this page
Who appears in captions?Filings commonly name Kalamata Capital Group, LLC as plaintiff on RPA / future-receivables contracts and personal guarantees
Is there an FTC / NY AG “Kalamata MCA refund” program?No program of that kind is described in the court sources checked for this page
Usury / “true loan” example (funder SJ granted)Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. A.C.S.A. Transportation L.L.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 34461(U) (N.Y. County, Dec. 20, 2024): court applied the Principis factors, held the RPA was not a usurious loan, and entered judgment for $29,159 plus interest/costs
Funding-proof / default-definition example (funder SJ denied)Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. Squad LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 35421(U) (Rockland County, Mar. 10, 2025): summary judgment denied even without opposition, because admissible proof of funding was lacking and non-payment alone was not shown as an Event of Default
Multi-agreement / fee exampleKalamata Capital Group, LLC v. Aaction Power Equip. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 50375(U) (Erie County, Feb. 23, 2026; corrected in part Mar. 27, 2026): summary judgment granted on the breaches; $2,500 default and $35 NSF fees sustained; attorney-fee amounts required a separate supported application
Does one SJ win wipe every Kalamata balance?No. Each opinion decides that caption’s papers. Squad shows funder SJ can fail on proof even when unopposed

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

Why Kalamata lawsuit results look different from Yellowstone

Yellowstone Capital appears in agency enforcement materials with redress narratives. Kalamata’s public footprint, in the opinions checked here, looks more like:

  1. Funder-as-plaintiff RPA enforcement in New York Supreme Court (often with a contractual New York forum clause)
  2. Recurring fights over whether an RPA is a true receivables purchase or a usurious loan under factors from cases like Principis Capital, LLC v. I Do, Inc.
  3. Evidentiary fights on proof of funding, bank-statement admissibility, and whether a missed remittance is actually an Event of Default under the contract text
  4. Fee disputes (default fees, NSF fees, percentage-based attorney fees) decided case by case

Case spotlight: A.C.S.A. Transportation (summary judgment for Kalamata, 2024)

Court: Supreme Court, New York County (Hon. Lyle E. Frank, J.)
Citation: Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. A.C.S.A. Transportation L.L.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 34461(U) (Dec. 20, 2024)
Index: 452907/2023

In April 2022, Kalamata entered an RPA purchasing $74,000 of future receivables from A.C.S.A. Transportation entities; Aaron Anthony Drawl signed as guarantor. Kalamata alleged about $47,586 was remitted before payments stopped, and sought $29,159 plus interest, costs, and disbursements.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found Events of Default under the RPA text: continuing to collect receivables without remitting Kalamata’s share, and failing to give reasonable notice of five or more rejected ACH attempts in a 30-day span. The court rejected the merchants’ usury theory after weighing the familiar three factors (reconciliation provision; finite term; bankruptcy recourse) drawn from Principis Capital, LLC v. I Do, Inc., 201 A.D.3d 752. On that record the court held the RPA had reconciliation language, no finite term, and no bankruptcy recourse for the funder, so it was not a usurious loan. Judgment entered for Kalamata for $29,159 with interest from October 11, 2022, plus costs; attorney fees left for a separate application.

What this decision does not establish

  • It does not mean every Kalamata RPA survives a usury challenge on every record
  • It does not create an industry refund or NY AG debt-cancellation program
  • It does not set a settlement percentage or “win rate” for other merchants

Case spotlight: Squad LLC (summary judgment denied, 2025)

Court: Supreme Court, Rockland County (Hon. Keith J. Cornell, A.J.S.C.)
Citation: Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. Squad LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 35421(U) (Mar. 10, 2025)
Index: 035568/2024

On July 1, 2024, The Squad LLC (and related names) sold $49,700 of future receivables for a $35,000 purchase price (weekly remittance framed at $956 / 15% of weekly receivables), with Stephanie Kristin Muhlenfeld as guarantor. Kalamata sued after alleged remittances of about $7,648, seeking a larger balance plus NSF, default, and attorney-fee add-ons.

Kalamata moved for summary judgment. Defendants did not oppose. The court still denied the motion. It found the purported proof of funding unidentifiable / not establishing a deposit into defendants’ account; bank statements lacked required certification for admissibility; and, critically, the moving papers did not identify a specific contractual Event of Default. The court noted that non-payment by a merchant, by itself, is not an Event of Default under the RPA’s listed defaults. A preliminary conference was ordered.

What this decision does not establish

  • It is not a holding that the Squad RPA is usurious or void
  • It does not cancel other Kalamata balances or predict your motion result
  • It does illustrate why funders still have to prove funding and a real Event of Default, even when a motion is unopposed

Case spotlight: Aaction Power Equipment (summary judgment with fee limits, 2026)

Court: Supreme Court, Erie County (Hon. Peter Allen Weinmann, A.J.S.C.)
Citation: Kalamata Capital Group, LLC v. Aaction Power Equip. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 50375(U) (Feb. 23, 2026; corrected in part Mar. 27, 2026)
Index: 805988/2025

Two RPAs were at issue with a Florida lawn-equipment merchant: roughly $102,750 receivables purchased for $75,000 (less fees), and $137,000 for $100,000 (less fees). The merchant stopped after paying about $39,000 on the first and about $45,000 on the second. The form RPA sent disputes to any New York Supreme Court; Erie County heard the case without a venue objection on the published record.

The court granted Kalamata summary judgment on the breaches after accepting Wells Fargo wire reports as business-record proof of initial funding (~$72,000 and ~$96,000) and finding no substantive opposing affidavit creating a fact issue. On liquidated fees, it sustained the contracted $2,500 default fee and $35 NSF fee under Truck Rent-A-Center reasonableness principles. Requested attorney fees (described as roughly 30% of balances, nearly $16,000 and $23,000) were not awarded on that motion; counsel had to submit a separate supported fee application with calculations.

What this decision does not establish

  • It does not decide that every contracted attorney-fee percentage is enforceable without proof
  • It does not mean Florida merchants always lose in New York on Kalamata forum clauses (venue/jurisdiction fights can differ)
  • It does not speak to settlement leverage outside that record

Related trial-court note: Arecosta (summary judgment for Kalamata, 2023)

Court: Supreme Court, Sullivan County (Hon. E. Danielle Jose-Decker, A.J.S.C.)
Citation: Kalamata Capital Group LLC v. Arecosta LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 31938(U) (June 7, 2023)
Index: E2022-2215

A July 22, 2022 RPA allegedly purchased $202,500 of future receivables. Kalamata claimed about $61,768.60 remitted before ACH access was denied, leaving $140,731.40 plus a $2,500 default fee and $35 NSF fee ($143,266.40 total sought). Merchants argued criminal usury and that reconciliation was illusory in practice.

The court granted Kalamata summary judgment. It walked through the RPA’s bi-weekly reconciliation email procedure, no-fixed-term language, and bankruptcy-not-default clause, then found the merchants had not submitted competent proof they sought reconciliation as the contract required (no sworn merchant affidavit with dates/emails). Conclusory attorney affirmations about phone denials were not enough. Judgment entered for $143,266.40 plus statutory interest from October 25, 2022, costs, and post-judgment interest.

Same caution as above: this is one Sullivan County record, not a template for every file.

What to do if you were served by Kalamata

  1. Read the caption and the RPA. Confirm the legal name, guarantors, purchase price, remittance percentage, and Event of Default list.
  2. Calendar the answer or motion deadline from the summons/proof of service. Missing it can allow default while you dig through Slip Opinions.
  3. Preserve funding receipts, ACH history, bank statements, and any reconciliation emails (the Squad and Aaction opinions show why paper quality matters).
  4. Do not assume Yellowstone-style relief applies. Kalamata is not the covered Yellowstone entity list on the Yellowstone Capital lawsuit page.
  5. Do not treat A.C.S.A. or Arecosta as automatic losses, and do not treat Squad as an automatic win. Courts decide the record in front of them.
  6. If you discuss settlement, keep docket obligations in view. Negotiating does not automatically pause a hearing.

Practical playbooks: frozen account / MCA funder, what is MCA settlement?, attorneys vs settlement companies.

FAQ

Is there a Kalamata FTC refund or NY AG debt-cancellation program?

No equivalent public FTC redress or NY AG debt-cancellation program for Kalamata is described in the court sources checked for this page. Treat “Kalamata Capital Group lawsuit” as a search for private RPA litigation unless an agency action says otherwise.

Does a published Kalamata win mean my agreement is automatically enforceable?

No. A.C.S.A. and Arecosta granted summary judgment on those papers. Squad denied summary judgment on different proof. Your reconciliation history, default clause, and exhibits may differ.

Why do some Kalamata suits land in Erie or Rockland when the merchant is out of state?

Several published RPAs use broad New York forum selection language. Whether that clause controls your case depends on the agreement and any timely venue/jurisdiction challenge. Aaction notes Erie heard a Florida merchant dispute under such a clause with no objection on that record.

Kalamata sued my company: should I ignore ACH pulls?

Stopping remittances without a formal agreement or court order can accelerate default fees, UCC practice, or judgment enforcement. Get the papers and deadline reviewed promptly. Compare written scopes and fees; see attorneys vs settlement companies.

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

Sometimes, depending on stage, forum, and whether counsel of record already exists. Confirm in writing who appears in court, what fees cover, and what happens if a conference is already set.

Where else should I read on this site?

Related funder lawsuit pages

The MCA lawsuit tracker places Kalamata's cases, including Arecosta, beside the other funder litigation we cover.

Related reading

Sources checked October 27, 2026

Desk research only. We did not contact Kalamata 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.

Takeaway

Treat “Kalamata Capital Group lawsuit” as a search for private RPA enforcement in New York courts. A.C.S.A. and Arecosta show funder summary judgment after the court rejected usury theories on those records. Squad shows summary judgment can still fail when funding proof and Event-of-Default identification are thin. Aaction separates liability/default-fee issues from attorney-fee proof. Read the caption, the deadline, and the exhibits before assuming any one Slip Opinion controls your file.

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.