Richmond Capital lawsuit: what the 2026 First Department opinion holds
Richmond Capital lawsuit coverage of People v. Richmond Capital Group: First Department affirms usury/fraud liability, vacates $77M judgment for damages remand.
Updated
Home · News · Richmond Capital lawsuit
By Anonymous MCA industry contributor Research, writing and editorial review · MCA sales background
A Richmond Capital lawsuit search usually lands on the New York Attorney General’s Executive Law § 63(12) case against Richmond Capital Group LLC and related respondents, not on a private merchant collection docket. In February 2026 the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed liability (usury, fraud, and unconscionability findings) but vacated the $77,289,631 monetary judgment and sent damages back for recalculation. This page sticks to that published appellate opinion and related First Department citations.
Editorial update: 2026-10-27 · Desk research of published NY appellate opinions only. Not legal advice.
Quick answer
| Item | Public record |
|---|---|
| Case | People of the State of New York v. Richmond Capital Group LLC et al., 2026 NY Slip Op 00990 (1st Dept Feb. 19, 2026) |
| Trial-level posture | Supreme Court, New York County (Borrok, J.) granted the People summary determination under Executive Law § 63(12) (order ~Sept. 15, 2023) and entered a judgment dated April 11, 2024 for $77,289,631 plus interest |
| Appellate outcome | Liability affirmed. Monetary judgment vacated and remanded for further proceedings on restitution amount, principal offsets, and settlement credits. Disgorgement denied on these facts. |
| Related private appellate cite often paired in search | Davis v. Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 194 AD3d 516 (1st Dept 2021): complaint adequately alleged MCA agreements were loans subject to usury analysis |
Soft next step if papers name Richmond Capital, RAM Capital Funding, or related individuals from this caption: read the actual order and deadline before assuming the vacated dollar figure is what you owe or what you will recover. You can request a free consultation from Coastal Debt Resolve (Get a free review). Comparing providers? See our Business Debt Insider review.
What the First Department actually held (2026)
The People alleged that respondents funded more than 3,000 transactions styled as merchant cash advances that were fraudulent, usurious loans in disguise. The Appellate Division agreed that Supreme Court properly found liability under Executive Law § 63(12).
On the loan-versus-sale question, the court treated the agreements as loans subject to usury limits. Among the facts it recited:
- Mandatory reconciliation language existed on paper, but the court found no reconciliation performed in practice on the monthly schedule described, and daily payments were fixed rather than a good-faith estimate of receivables.
- Ad hoc reconciliation requests were subject to the funders’ “sole discretion,” and the record included evidence that such requests were denied.
- Bankruptcy was an express default in some agreements; even where it was not, repeated nonpayment or interrupting/suspending/dissolving/terminating the business could accelerate the full uncollected amount and open personal-guaranty enforcement.
- Usurious intent was clear as a matter of law once reconciliation was absent, because interest could be calculated from the face of the agreements.
The court also affirmed findings of repeated or persistent fraud (including material misrepresentations to merchants and in judgment affidavits) and procedural plus substantive unconscionability. Joint and several liability findings against RAM Capital Funding LLC, Tzvi Reich, and Robert Giardina were affirmed on common-enterprise / personal-participation grounds described in the opinion.
What the damages remand does not mean
- Vacating the $77,289,631 figure is not a win that erases liability. Liability stands.
- The People were told they must attempt to exclude principal repayments from the restitution math and that Supreme Court must consider offsets (including amounts already paid to settle merchant claims). Double recovery is not allowed.
- Disgorgement was not available as an additional remedy on these facts.
- The opinion does not publish a merchant-facing refund portal or a claim deadline for every past Richmond customer.
Earlier First Department signal: Davis (2021)
Davis v. Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 194 AD3d 516 (1st Dept 2021), is a private civil appeal often cited alongside the AG case. The First Department held that the complaint sufficiently alleged the MCA agreements were loans for usury purposes, pointing to factors such as discretionary reconciliation and fixed daily payments. Davis is not the AG damages judgment. It is useful context for why Richmond Capital opinions keep showing up in MCA loan-characterization research.
How this differs from Yellowstone / Cloudfund
| Track | Core public outcome |
|---|---|
| Yellowstone Capital lawsuit | Separate OAG special proceeding that produced a January 2025 settlement canceling listed Yellowstone merchant debts; Cloudfund / Delta Bridge remains in that docket |
| Cloudfund lawsuit | Ongoing OAG claims against Delta Bridge Funding (Cloudfund) after Yellowstone settled, plus private Rockland collection opinions |
| Richmond Capital (this page) | Older OAG § 63(12) proceeding against Richmond Capital Group and related respondents; 2026 First Department opinion affirms liability and remands the money judgment |
Do not treat a Yellowstone Rust Consulting notice as automatic relief on a Richmond or RAM Capital Funding balance. Match the legal name on your papers.
What to do if Richmond / related names appear on your papers
- Read the caption. Richmond Capital Group LLC, RAM Capital Funding LLC, individual respondents, or an assignee may appear. Entity overlap with unrelated “RAM Capital” FTC coverage is a common search trap; verify the docket and parties.
- Separate AG enforcement from your private file. An affirmed AG liability finding is not the same as a private settlement offer or a canceled ACH.
- Calendar any answer, opposition, or claim deadline on papers you actually received.
- Preserve the RPA, payment ledger, and any reconciliation requests or denials. Those facts drove the appellate loan analysis.
- Get counsel or a written settlement scope before stopping ACH pulls or ignoring a summons.
If you want a second set of eyes on the papers, request a free consultation from Coastal Debt Resolve (Get a free review). To compare another provider, see our Business Debt Insider review.
FAQ
Did the Appellate Division wipe out the Richmond Capital case?
No. It affirmed liability and vacated only the monetary portion of the April 11, 2024 judgment for recalculation on remand.
Is the $77 million figure still the amount merchants get back?
Not as a final, enforceable restitution total under the February 19, 2026 order. The court sent the damages question back so principal repayments and offsets can be addressed. There is no published one-click refund schedule in that opinion.
Is Richmond Capital the same as Yellowstone Capital?
No. They are separate OAG tracks with different captions, timelines, and remedies. See Yellowstone Capital lawsuit for the Yellowstone settlement path.
Richmond or RAM Capital sued my company: should I ignore ACH pulls?
Stopping payments without a written agreement or court order can accelerate default fees, UCC enforcement, or judgment practice. 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 enforcement is pending?
Sometimes, depending on the stage, the forum, and whether you already have counsel of record. Confirm in writing who appears in court, what fees cover, and what happens if a hearing is already scheduled.
Where else should I read on this site?
- Merchant cash advance lawsuit hub
- Yellowstone Capital lawsuit
- Cloudfund lawsuit
- Itria Ventures lawsuit (separate FTC PPP track; do not conflate with this AG case)
- Pearl Capital lawsuit
- Kalamata Capital Group lawsuit
- What is MCA settlement?
Related funder lawsuit pages
Richmond Capital is one of the enforcement-heavy entries in our MCA lawsuit tracker; compare it there with other funders.
- Argus Capital lawsuit
- True Business Funding lawsuit
- Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit
- Fundkite lawsuit
- Byzfunder lawsuit
- LG Funding lawsuit
- Principis Capital lawsuit
- Crystal Springs Capital lawsuit
- Apollo Funding lawsuit
- Spin Capital lawsuit
- Diesel Funding lawsuit
- Samson MCA lawsuit
- Merchant cash advance lawsuit hub
- MCA settlement industry news
Related reading
- MCA lawsuit first 30 days
- MCA confession of judgment
- Frozen account MCA funder
- FTC Yellowstone / RAM Capital refunds note (different RAM Capital FTC matter; check parties before assuming overlap)
- Funder profiles index
Sources checked October 27, 2026
Desk research only. We did not contact Richmond Capital Group or related respondents 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.
- Justia: People v. Richmond Capital Group LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00990 (1st Dept Feb. 19, 2026)
- NY Courts reporter: Davis v. Richmond Capital Group, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03111 / 194 AD3d 516
- Internal contrast: Yellowstone Capital lawsuit; Cloudfund lawsuit; FTC refunds note
Takeaway
Treat “Richmond Capital lawsuit” primarily as the OAG § 63(12) enforcement case. The First Department in 2026 kept the liability findings and sent the $77 million money judgment back for a restitution math that excludes principal double-counting and accounts for offsets. That is not a private merchant playbook and not the Yellowstone debt-cancellation settlement. Read the caption on your papers before you assume either People v. Richmond or Davis 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.
Also comparing providers? Read our Business Debt Insider review, and confirm any engagement terms directly with BDI.