Find Me Funders
When one funder agrees and the other refuses
The relief you won gets consumed by the creditor who said no, unless you built the condition in before you asked.
Drafted with AI assistance. Not yet independently checked. Nobody has verified the claims on this page against a source, so treat the figures and legal points as a starting point rather than as settled, and confirm anything you are about to act on. How we check things.
What happens if one funder agrees to restructure and the other refuses?
The relief granted by the agreeing funder flows straight to the one who refused, because the money freed up by a lower payment is still being debited by the unchanged position. Unless your proposal was conditional on both agreeing, you have given up something — usually an acknowledged balance, a released claim and a reaffirmed guarantee — in exchange for relief you do not get to keep. Work out the post-agreement arithmetic before you sign anything: if the remaining position still exceeds what the business generates, a partial restructure delays the problem rather than solving it. Build the conditionality into the proposal from the start, and decide in advance what you will do with a split outcome.
Compute the split outcome before you send the proposals, because it is the most likely one.
The arithmetic of a split
The pro-rata proposal was A at $378 a day ($8,190 a month) and B at $222 a day ($4,810 a month), together exactly $13,000.
Now B refuses and keeps debiting $420 a day.
- B's monthly draw, unchanged: $9,101.40
- Left in the pool for A: $13,000 − $9,101.40 = $3,898.60 a month, about $180 a business day
- A was promised $378 a day, or $8,190 a month
- Shortfall against what you agreed with A: $4,291.40 a month
You now have a signed agreement with A that you cannot perform, because the creditor who refused is taking more than twice their pro-rata share.
Run it the other way and it is worse. If A refuses and keeps $620 a day — $13,435.40 a month — the pool is exhausted before B receives anything at all.
That is the whole problem in two lines. A partial restructure does not partially fix a cash flow gap. It transfers relief from the creditor who cooperated to the creditor who did not.
What you gave up to get the yes
A restructure document is not free. Typically you have signed:
- An acknowledgement of the outstanding balance
- A reaffirmation of the personal guarantee
- A release of claims against that funder up to the signing date
- Sometimes an acknowledgement that a default occurred
- A fee
If you then breach the new agreement within weeks because the other creditor consumed the relief, you have paid all of that for a few weeks of cash flow — and the agreeing creditor's remedies typically revive in full, often including the original default.
The clause that prevents it
One sentence in the proposal, before anyone signs:
"This proposal is conditional upon the holder of the other position agreeing to equivalent terms on or before [date]. If they do not, this proposal lapses and no modification takes effect."
Ask for the same conditionality in the executed document, not only in the proposal. A condition in a cover email is a weaker thing than a condition precedent in the agreement.
Funders accept this more often than people expect, because a restructure that fails in month two is worth little to them either. The argument to make is exactly that: "An arrangement I cannot perform helps neither of us. I would rather have your agreement contingent on the other position than have both of us discover the problem in six weeks."
Your options once it has already happened
What not to do
Do not sign the agreement with the cooperating funder and hope. The arithmetic above does not improve with time.
Do not stop paying the refusing creditor to fund the agreement with the cooperating one. Unilaterally halting an authorised debit is typically a breach and in many agreements an event of default, with consequences that can include acceleration and action against the guarantor.
Do not tell each creditor a different story about the other. They may well compare.
The decision to make in advance
Before sending any proposal, write down the answer to: "If exactly one of these is agreed, what do I do on that day?"
There are only four answers — proceed anyway, withdraw and revert to both, pay off the refuser, or move to a different transaction entirely. Choosing between them in a quiet hour is a much better process than choosing on a call with a funder waiting for a signature.
What to have ready
The pool figure from bank statements. Both payoff quotes. The pro-rata arithmetic. The conditional clause drafted into the proposal. And the split-outcome arithmetic, computed both ways, so you know which creditor's refusal breaks the plan and by how much.
What each agreement permits, what a breach triggers and what remedies revive all depend on the specific contracts and on the law of the state they select. This is general information about the arithmetic and the sequence, not legal advice, and a multi-creditor workout that has gone sideways is worth professional help.
Where this applies
Related questions
What happens if one funder agrees to restructure and the other refuses?
The relief granted by the agreeing funder flows straight to the one who refused, because the money freed up by a lower payment is still being debited by the unchanged position. Unless your proposal was conditional on both agreeing, you have given up something — usually an acknowledged balance, a released claim and a reaffirmed guarantee — in exchange for relief you do not get to keep. Work out the post-agreement arithmetic before you sign anything: if the remaining position still exceeds what the business generates, a partial restructure delays the problem rather than solving it. Build the conditionality into the proposal from the start, and decide in advance what you will do with a split outcome.
Which funding products does this apply to?
Merchant Cash Advance, Working Capital, Revenue-Based Financing. Each has its own page listing the funders in this directory that offer it and what each one publishes about its terms.
Are the figures here quotes?
No. Every worked example is labelled illustrative and exists to show the arithmetic. What a particular lender charges is on that lender's page, where it publishes it at all.
Who writes this?
The Find Me Funders research desk. Some drafting is AI-assisted, and every page that is says so at the top, including whether a person has checked its claims yet.
How do I know a figure here is right?
Where a page carries the green notice, its claims were checked against the sources listed at the end and a reviewer is named. Where it carries the amber one, nobody has verified it yet and you should confirm anything you plan to act on.
Are the examples real deals?
No. Every worked example is labelled illustrative and exists to show the arithmetic. What any particular lender charges is on that lender's page, where it publishes it.
Why do you never say what a typical rate is?
Because we cannot source it. A market average assembled from lenders who do not publish prices is a guess with a decimal point on it. Where a lender publishes a figure, we show that figure and say where it came from.
Is this financial or legal advice?
No. It is general information about how these products work. Outcomes depend on your contract and your state, and a lawyer or accountant licensed where you are is the person to ask about your situation.
Can I reuse this content?
Quote a paragraph with a link back. Do not republish whole articles.