Delancey Street review.
MCA & business debt settlement
Settles business debt and nothing else, $100M+ resolved, attorney-backed, one percentage-of-debt fee.
Our verdict
Delancey Street settles business debt and settles nothing else. No credit cards, no medical bills, no consumer side hustle. Merchant cash advances, SBA workouts, vendor balances, credit lines, and the UCC liens that sit underneath all of it, the full inventory of what a distressed operating company owes. The firm has resolved over $100 million of it, most of it MCAs.
The model is one straightforward fee: a percentage of the debt, and nothing else. You know the cost going in, the consultation costs nothing, and there are no layered program charges to decode. Compare that against the consumer-industry norm (15–25% of whatever you enroll, spread across multi-year programs) and the difference is clarity: one number, tied to the debt itself, agreed before anyone starts.
Delancey Street is not a law firm itself. It coordinates with a nationwide network of licensed attorneys who know where MCA contracts crack: the reconciliation clause the funder never honored, the usurious effective rate dressed up as a “purchase,” the defective UCC-1, the confession of judgment signed at 2am. That is leverage a call center cannot replicate.
And they are fast. Consumer programs quote 24–48 months. A single-advance Delancey file can resolve in weeks. When the debit hits your account every morning before payroll, the timeline is not a detail. It is the product.
What we like
- Exclusively business & MCA debt: over $100M settled across 1,000+ businesses
- One fee: a percentage of the debt, and nothing else
- Moves to stop daily ACH debits first, where reconciliation rights apply
- Free consultation with a senior advisor, and they tell you if settlement is the wrong move
What gave us pause
- Business debt only. Consumer credit-card files get turned away
- Selective about cases; they decline files they don’t believe they can settle
- Not a law firm itself; legal work runs through an independent attorney network
Who it’s for
- Businesses with one or more MCAs, especially stacked advances
- Owners facing daily/weekly ACH debits that threaten payroll
- Anyone served with a COJ, UCC lien notice, or funder lawsuit
- SBA and vendor-debt workouts alongside MCA balances
Who should look elsewhere
- Personal credit-card or medical debt (use a consumer firm, see #5–#9)
- Businesses that have already shut down operations
- Owners looking for new financing rather than debt resolution
How Delancey Street compares with the runner-up
Local guides where readers use this review
In their own words
What customers wrote about Delancey Street
This average rests on 1 review. That is not a sample, it is an anecdote, and it should not be read as a rating.
What satisfied customers wrote
“Excellent service. Very professional team. I highly recommend them. They are very honest.”
★★★★★ Rebecca S · 06/10/2026 · BBB
What complaints and critics wrote
No negative reviews or complaints appear on the sources we could reach. On a thin profile that may say more about volume than about service.
Quotes are reproduced exactly as written, including original spelling and punctuation, and are trimmed only with an ellipsis where marked. Where the BBB has redacted an employee’s name we show [name withheld]. Reviewers are identified only by the display name their platform shows. We pick quotes to represent the range on each profile, not to make a case, and we publish the overall rating and review count beside them so you can judge how typical any one of them is. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
The court record
Lawsuits involving Delancey Street
1 matter on file, grouped by who did the suing, because those are not the same fact. We confirmed every one against a court record.
Lawsuits involving Delancey Street (1)
Each entry is tagged by who brought it. A funder suing a settlement firm and a client suing one are close to opposite facts, so read the tag before the caption.
-
Client sued Tom v. Delancey Street Group LLC et al. Dismissed, with prejudice
DispositionDismissed WITH PREJUDICE and without leave to amend on August 5, 2026 by Judge Joan M. Azrack, with a separate Rule 58 judgment entered August 6, 2026 (ECF Doc. 54). Reported at 2026 WL 2255107. No notice of appeal was on the docket as of this page's verification. No finding of liability was made against any defendant.
David Tom, an individual, brought a putative class action under 47 U.S.C. sec. 227(c)(5) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that telemarketing text messages promoting merchant cash advance debt relief were sent to a number on the national do-not-call registry, and that the messages displayed 'BABYLON NY' rather than a company name on caller ID. The court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that section 227(c)(5) requires more than one violative solicitation and that only the first message qualified on the pleaded exchange, and dismissed with prejudice on futility grounds. Footnote 4 records that the court expressly declined to reach the argument that the company could not be held directly or vicariously liable, so that question was not decided either way.
View the record ↗
Claims we could not verify, and therefore do not state as fact: “A 'pending TCPA class action' is pending against Delancey Street” (businessdebtadjusters.com and mcasettlementreviews.com (both competitor-operated review sites; per SCHEMA rule 2 these are leads only)); “Secondary trade-press characterizations of WHY the TCPA case was dismissed — specifically that the court held the plaintiff's 'Yes' reply gave consent to later texts, that a free-form opt-out was insufficient to revoke consent, and that there is no private right of action for the caller-ID claim” (receivablesinfo.com (Aug 7, 2026) and tcpaworld.com (Aug 6, 2026)); “That the New York Attorney General's enforcement records were searched for this company and returned nothing. They were NOT searched: the ag.ny.gov search parameter does not filter, and a control query returned the same unfiltered listing for two different company names. Any 'no NY AG record' statement is withdrawn.” (an earlier pass by this project). Each appears online with no court, caption, or docket behind it. We list them so you know we looked.
Court records are public and they change. A filed complaint contains allegations, not findings, and a case appearing here is not a conclusion that the company did anything wrong. Where a case ended, we say how it ended. Where we could not confirm a docket, we say that too. One limit worth knowing: free docket sources show only what someone has already paid to fetch, so a case we describe as open may have been resolved since the date shown against it. Treat every date here as the last time the record was refreshed, not as today. Last verified August 24, 2026.