Samson MCA lawsuit: what Russo (4th Dept) and Elephant (Erie) held
Samson MCA lawsuit coverage of Russo (4th Dept affirmance) and Elephant (Erie SJ): why the courts treated these as revenue purchases, not usurious loans.
Updated
Home · News · Samson MCA lawsuit
By Anonymous MCA industry contributor Research, writing and editorial review · MCA sales background
A Samson MCA lawsuit search usually lands on private New York collection litigation naming Samson MCA LLC, not a statewide Attorney General enforcement caption. Two published tracks matter most: the Fourth Department's August 11, 2023 affirmance in Samson MCA LLC v. Joseph A. Russo M.D. P.C./IV Therapeutics PLLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04271, 219 AD3d 1126, and Erie County's February 23, 2026 summary-judgment grant in Samson MCA LLC v. Elephant Constr. Solutions LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 50377(U). Ontario County granted Samson summary judgment; the Fourth Department affirmed that judgment against a guarantor who called the deals criminally usurious loans. Erie later granted Samson summary judgment against a different merchant under the same three-factor test, even while flagging a one-sided reconciliation clause. This page sticks to those opinions. It is not a prediction about your file.
Editorial update: 2026-10-27 · Desk research of the published Fourth Department memorandum and the Erie Slip Opinion. Not legal advice.
Quick answer
| Item | Public record |
|---|---|
| Lead appellate case | Samson MCA LLC v. Joseph A. Russo M.D. P.C./IV Therapeutics PLLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04271, 219 AD3d 1126 (4th Dept Aug. 11, 2023) (appeal No. 2; appeal No. 1 dismissed) |
| Trial court (Russo) | Supreme Court, Ontario County (Odorisi, J.); SJ order Apr. 8, 2022; money judgment May 10, 2022 |
| Russo outcome | Ontario granted Samson SJ / denied defendants' cross-SJ; Fourth Department affirmed the judgment |
| Companion trial case | Samson MCA LLC v. Elephant Constr. Solutions LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 50377(U) (Sup Ct, Erie County, Weinmann, J., Feb. 23, 2026), Index No. 805075/2025 |
| Elephant outcome | Erie granted Samson SJ; usury defense failed because the deal was not a loan under the three-factor test |
| Core holding (both) | Reconciliation + indefinite term + limited/no bankruptcy recourse → revenue purchase, not absolute loan |
Soft next step if papers name Samson MCA: compare your reconciliation, term, and bankruptcy clauses to the packages Ontario, the Fourth Department, and Erie treated as contingent receivables before you assume either label controls.
What happened in Russo (Ontario → Fourth Department)
Samson and Joseph A. Russo M.D. P.C./IV Therapeutics PLLC d/b/a Aspire Med Spa entered two revenue purchase agreements. Samson advanced money in exchange for 25% of future revenues until an agreed purchased amount (greater than the advance) was paid. There was no interest rate, no payment schedule, and no fixed collection window. Each deal used a weekly remittance as a good-faith estimate of Samson's share, acknowledged that Samson might never receive the purchased amount if revenue was insufficient, and, for the most part, gave Samson no bankruptcy recourse. Each also contained two reconciliation clauses allowing retroactive and prospective remittance changes on request with proof of earned revenue. Joseph Russo and Marco V. Beatrice personally guaranteed performance.
Samson sued for breach and on the guaranties. Ontario granted Samson's summary-judgment motion, denied the defendants' cross-motion (criminal usury and standing), and entered a money judgment. Beatrice appealed. Appeal No. 1 (from the order) was dismissed after the judgment entered; appeal No. 2 brought the order up for review.
What the Fourth Department held
The panel applied the familiar three-factor test (LG Funding; Principis): reconciliation provision; finite vs indefinite term; bankruptcy recourse. Samson established as a matter of law that the agreements were revenue purchases, not loans. The contracts required remittance adjustments on request based on revenue changes, had no finite term and no payment schedule, acknowledged Samson might never collect the purchased amount if revenue failed, and generally gave Samson no bankruptcy recourse. Beatrice raised no triable issue. The judgment was unanimously affirmed. Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Curran, Montour, and Ogden sat.
What Erie held in Elephant
In a separate 2026 collection action, Samson alleged it purchased about $98,000 of Elephant Construction Solutions LLC's future receivables for $70,000, with remittances tied to a percentage of receipts and personal guaranties from Mauricio Carbajal Fuentes and Alejandro I. Carbajal Padilla. After roughly $13,000 paid, remittances stopped. Samson sought about $85,000 arrears plus roughly $25,000 in contractual attorney fees (30% of the outstanding balance), totaling about $110,000 plus interest. The boilerplate selected New York Supreme Court jurisdiction; Samson filed in Erie despite limited local nexus. Defendants did not object.
Erie found no triable fact on breach: agreement, performance, and stopped remittances were undisputed. On usury, Weinmann, J., applied the same three-factor test. The agreement had no fixed term (payment due only as receivables generated). Section 11(g) gave Samson no bankruptcy recourse. Section 4 set out a reconciliation procedure the court called extreme, restrictive, and even arguably illusory, but held that the caselaw requires the existence of a reconciliation provision, not that it be equitable or fair. The merchant never requested reconciliation; he simply stopped paying. Because the deal was not a loan, it could not be usurious. Reduced-revenue excuses without bank statements or other financial proof did not create a fact issue. Summary judgment for Samson was granted.
Why this matters for "Samson MCA lawsuit" searches
Samson now has a Fourth Department affirmance plus a recent Erie companion that both treat reconciliation + indefinite term + limited bankruptcy recourse as receivables, not absolute loans. Erie is candid that a one-sided reconciliation clause can look extreme and still count under current Appellate Division framing. Compare:
- Apollo Funding lawsuit: 2d Dept reversed Rockland and granted funder SJ; unused reconciliation not treated as illusory on that record (Dave Reilly).
- Crystal Springs Capital lawsuit: 2d Dept vacated default and dismissed after fixed daily debits, no reconciliation duty, and bankruptcy/default acceleration made repayment absolute and criminally usurious (Big Thicket).
- True Business Funding lawsuit: 2d Dept affirmed funder SJ on reconciliation / indefinite term / bankruptcy-as-excuse (Guerrero).
- Argus Capital lawsuit: Fourth Department kept merchant usury / fraud theories alive past dismissal (Oakshire).
- Seamless Capital Group lawsuit: Kings denied funder SJ on CPLR 4518 foundation and damages math (Bryan Anthonys).
- Unique Funding Solutions lawsuit: Nassau granted funder SJ despite an "alarming" reconciliation-receipt addendum (A-Z Imports).
If your caption is Samson collecting after a guarantor usury defense, Russo is the published Fourth Department signal. If your file looks more like a stopped-remittance merchant with a tight reconciliation window, Elephant shows how one Erie judge weighed that package in 2026.
Related funder lawsuit pages
To compare Samson MCA with other funders that show up in court records, use our MCA lawsuit tracker.
- LG Funding lawsuit
- Principis Capital lawsuit
- Crystal Springs Capital lawsuit
- Apollo Funding lawsuit
- Spin Capital lawsuit
- Diesel Funding lawsuit
- True Business Funding lawsuit
- Richmond Capital lawsuit
- MCA settlement industry news
- Merchant cash advance lawsuit hub
Sources (public)
- Samson MCA LLC v. Joseph A. Russo M.D. P.C./IV Therapeutics PLLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04271, 219 AD3d 1126 (4th Dept Aug. 11, 2023), Justia republication; companion appeal No. 1 dismissal at 2023 NY Slip Op 04270
- Samson MCA LLC v. Elephant Constr. Solutions LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 50377(U) (Sup Ct, Erie County Feb. 23, 2026), Justia republication
Takeaway
Treat "Samson MCA lawsuit" search intent primarily through Russo and Elephant: Ontario granted Samson SJ and the Fourth Department affirmed a guarantor judgment after finding reconciliation, no finite term, and limited bankruptcy recourse; Erie later granted Samson SJ against a different merchant under the same three-factor test, even while calling the reconciliation procedure extreme and arguably illusory. That is a multi-opinion receivables-vs-loan signal for one funder, not a statewide ban and not an FTC refund story.
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.