The project was funded. The draws were delayed. The MCA was taken to bridge the gap. The gap never closed because the daily withdrawal consumed the draw before it could fund the next phase.

Construction contractors are heavily represented in the MCA borrower pool because the industry’s cash flow structure is fundamentally mismatched with the MCA’s daily withdrawal model. Construction revenue arrives in draws — periodic payments tied to project milestones. Construction expenses arrive daily — materials, labor, equipment rentals, subcontractors, insurance, permits. The gap between expenses and draws is the space where MCA funding enters, and it is the space where MCA funding causes the most damage.

Why Construction Is Particularly Vulnerable

Construction cash flow is project-driven, irregular, and subject to delays that are outside the contractor’s control. A draw that is delayed because the inspector is backed up, the architect has not approved the change order, or the owner is slow to process the payment creates a cash flow gap that the contractor must bridge. The MCA fills the gap, but the daily withdrawal does not pause while the draw is delayed. The contractor is paying the MCA with money that does not yet exist.

Seasonality compounds the problem. Many contractors in cold-weather states experience significant revenue declines during winter months when outdoor work stops or slows. The MCA’s daily withdrawal does not adjust for seasonality. The payment that was sustainable during a busy summer becomes unsustainable during a slow winter.

Subcontractor and material costs are front-loaded. The contractor pays suppliers and subs before receiving the draw that reimburses those costs. The MCA withdrawal competes directly with these upfront payments. When the daily debit takes priority over a material supplier’s invoice, the supplier places the contractor on COD or refuses to supply. When the debit takes priority over a subcontractor’s payment, the sub walks off the job. The project stalls. The draw is delayed further. The cycle accelerates.

Industry-Specific Challenges

Construction contractors face unique challenges because their revenue is project-specific and their assets are often project-specific as well. The MCA’s UCC lien may encumber not only the contractor’s general business assets but also equipment, vehicles, and receivables from specific projects. This encumbrance can interfere with bonding requirements, contract compliance, and the contractor’s ability to bid on new work.

Bonding companies review the contractor’s financial position before issuing performance and payment bonds. An MCA lien on the contractor’s assets signals financial stress that may reduce bonding capacity. Reduced bonding capacity means the contractor cannot bid on bonded projects, which limits revenue, which increases the MCA’s burden relative to the contractor’s income. The lien impairs the very capacity the contractor needs to generate the revenue to pay the MCA.

Business owners in Dallas facing similar challenges can explore MCA debt relief in Dallas for local legal support.

Business owners in Houston facing similar challenges can explore MCA debt relief in Houston for local legal support.

Relief Options for Contractors

Settlement negotiations for contractors leverage the project-driven nature of construction revenue to demonstrate why fixed daily payments are fundamentally incompatible with the industry’s cash flow structure. This incompatibility strengthens the recharacterization argument: a genuine purchase of future receivables should account for the timing and variability of those receivables. Fixed daily payments from a contractor whose revenue arrives in monthly or bi-monthly draws is not a percentage-based purchase. It is a fixed-payment loan.

Reconciliation requests supported by project schedules, draw requests, and payment histories provide clear evidence that revenue is irregular and that the fixed payment amount does not reflect actual receivables. UCC lien removal is critical for contractors who need to maintain bonding capacity and access to project financing. An attorney experienced in MCA disputes for construction clients understands the draw cycle, the bonding implications, and the leverage points specific to the construction industry.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted
Multi-State Licensed
Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

For contractors carrying multiple stacked MCAs, the compounding effect is particularly severe because each advance’s daily withdrawal reduces the cash available for project-related expenses. A contractor who cannot pay subs or purchase materials cannot complete projects. Projects that are not completed do not generate draws. Draws that are not generated cannot fund the MCA payments. The circularity is complete, and the only exit is a settlement that breaks the cycle.

The construction industry’s project-based revenue structure actually provides an advantage in settlement negotiations. Contractors can provide detailed project schedules, draw timelines, and contract values that demonstrate both the current cash flow constraint and the future revenue potential if the MCA burden is removed. A contractor with $2 million in contracted work and three stacked MCAs consuming 25% of daily revenue presents a clear case: settle the MCAs, and the contractor completes the work and generates the revenue. Refuse to settle, and the contractor defaults on the projects, loses the contracts, and the funder recovers nothing. The funder’s rational choice is settlement.

UCC lien removal is especially urgent for contractors because the lien directly impairs bonding capacity and the ability to bid on new work. The settlement agreement should require UCC-3 termination within a compressed timeline, and the attorney should verify the filing with the Secretary of State before considering the settlement complete. A settlement that reduces the debt but leaves the lien in place has not solved the contractor’s fundamental problem — the lien is preventing the contractor from bidding, bonding, and generating the revenue needed to sustain the business going forward.