This bill requires providers who purchase small-business accounts receivable to give small business concerns a written disclosure of key terms before entering factoring facility agreements that are under a $500,000 threshold (or expected to be under that threshold). The disclosure must explain how much the provider pays relative to face value, list fees, describe any reserve and its terms, state the agreement’s duration, and include a worked example for a $10,000 receivable.
The measure aims to standardize pre-contract information so small firms can compare offers and avoid surprise holdbacks or fees. It also preempts state-level rules on these disclosures and defines core terms (for example, treating parties’ label of a transaction as a ‘‘true sale’’ for purposes of the statute).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill compels providers that purchase accounts receivable in interstate commerce to deliver a written disclosure to a small business before entering a factoring facility agreement whenever the expected aggregate factoring under the agreement (including fees) is below $500,000 or unspecified but reasonably expected to be below that amount. The disclosure must list the discount or percentage taken, enumerate fees, state reserve terms, specify duration, and provide a numerical $10,000 example showing net payment to the seller.
Who It Affects
Directly affects factoring providers (purchasers of receivables engaged in interstate commerce) and small business concerns as defined by the Small Business Act. It also matters to compliance teams at financing firms, lawyers drafting facility agreements, and state regulators whose disclosure regimes would be displaced by federal preemption.
Why It Matters
The bill imposes a uniform pre-contract transparency standard for a financing product often criticized for opaque economics and unpredictable reserves. For practitioners, the statute creates a compliance checklist (contents + example) and a federal floor that overrides conflicting state requirements, changing how factors document and present deals to small sellers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CASH Act forces factors to hand a clear, written explanation to a small business before signing a factoring facility agreement when the facility’s total factoring (fees included) will be below the $500,000 cutoff. That explanation must go beyond a one-line fee schedule: the statute requires a numerical or percentage disclosure of the gap between an invoice’s face value and the amount the provider will pay, a plain list of all possible fees, the structure and terms of any reserve the factor may hold back, and how long the facility runs.
The disclosure must also include a worked $10,000 example showing the math from face value down to the net payment.
The bill draws lines about which transactions count as factoring for these rules and which do not. It says that a transaction labeled by the parties as a sale of accounts receivable is conclusively a ‘‘true sale’’ for the statute’s purposes, and it excludes loans or advances that are repaid from future receivables that did not yet exist when the advance was made.
The definition of provider is keyed to purchasers of receivables who are engaged in interstate commerce, so pure in-state actors may fall outside the statute depending on their activities.There is a narrow operational carve‑out: a provider does not have to deliver a new disclosure when the only change is a modification of an existing facility. The bill also contains a federal preemption clause that prevents states or political subdivisions from imposing disclosure requirements that are inconsistent with or additional to the Act’s requirements, effectively setting a single national disclosure standard for covered transactions.Practically, the statute creates a compliance product: a written disclosure form that covers five required elements plus a $10,000 illustrative calculation.
For factors, that means building templates, tracking when an agreement meets the threshold test (including estimating aggregate exposure when the contract does not specify a cap), and deciding how to present reserves and fees so the example reflects the maximum potential holdback.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute applies when the aggregate dollar amount of factoring transactions under the facility, including fees and other charges, is less than $500,000 — or when no aggregate is specified but both parties reasonably expect it will be under $500,000.
The disclosure must include the amount or percentage the provider deducts from invoice face value (the purchase price delta) and a plain list of any fees that may be charged under the facility.
Providers must disclose the amount and terms of any reserve, and the required $10,000 worked example must show the discount, applicable fees, the maximum reserve, and the net payment to the small business.
The bill declares parties’ characterization of a transaction as a purchase-and-sale of accounts receivable to be conclusive that the transaction is a ‘‘true sale’’ for this Act’s purposes; it separately excludes loans or advances repaid from future, non-existent receivables.
Section 3 preempts state or local laws that would impose disclosure requirements that are additional to or inconsistent with this Act, creating a federal-only disclosure standard for covered providers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This short provision names the measure the ‘‘Capital Access for Small Businesses Harmonization Act’’ or ‘‘CASH Act.’
When a disclosure is required
Subsection (a) sets the trigger for the disclosure obligation. A provider must deliver a written disclosure before entering into a factoring facility agreement whenever the facility’s aggregate authorized factoring, inclusive of fees and charges, is under $500,000, or when the agreement omits an aggregate cap but both parties reasonably expect aggregate factoring to be under $500,000. Practically, factors will need procedures to estimate expected aggregate exposure when contracts are open-ended to determine whether the statute applies.
Mandatory disclosure content
Subsection (b) lists five discrete disclosure elements: the purchase-price gap (amount or percentage) between face value and what the provider pays; a list of fees that may apply; the amount and terms of any reserve; the facility duration; and a worked numerical example using a $10,000 invoice that demonstrates the preceding items — including the maximum reserve and the net funds delivered. This specification forces uniformity in how terms are presented and supplies a common comparison tool for small sellers.
Modification exception
Subsection (c) clarifies that providers need not furnish the same disclosure when the change is merely a modification of an existing factoring facility agreement. The narrowness of this rule leaves open questions about what counts as a non-material modification versus an amended facility that should trigger a fresh disclosure.
Federal preemption
This section bars states or localities from imposing requirements that are additional to or inconsistent with the Act’s disclosure rules. For practitioners, the preemption reduces the compliance complexity of differing state disclosure standards but also prevents states from enforcing more protective or divergent disclosure regimes for covered providers.
Definitions and scope
Section 4 defines key terms: ‘‘factoring transaction’’ (sale of accounts receivable where payment by the account debtor is the primary repayment source), ‘‘factoring facility agreement,’’ ‘‘provider’’ (a purchaser in a factoring transaction engaged in interstate commerce), ‘‘reserve,’’ and ‘‘small business concern’’ (as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act). Notably, the statute treats the parties’ label of a sale as conclusive that it is a true sale and explicitly excludes loans or advances against future, non-existent receivables from the factoring definition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small business concerns that sell receivables — receive a standardized, numeric breakdown of pricing, fees, and reserves before signing, aiding comparison shopping and cash-flow planning.
- Small-business advisers and accountants — gain a required disclosure and worked example to use in due diligence and cash-flow modeling, reducing the time needed to translate contractual terms into client advice.
- Compliance and legal teams for medium and large financing firms — obtain a clear statutory checklist for required pre-contract disclosures, which can be incorporated into onboarding templates and checklists to reduce transactional ambiguity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Factoring providers (purchasers of receivables) — must create and deliver the required disclosures, implement procedures to determine whether the $500,000 threshold applies, and produce the $10,000 worked example for each covered facility.
- Deal operations and sales teams — face operational friction and documentation work when estimating aggregate facility exposure for open-ended agreements and when explaining reserves and fee permutations to small sellers.
- State and local regulators — lose authority to impose disclosure regimes that are inconsistent with the Act, which may eliminate locally tailored protections or reporting requirements and shift the enforcement locus away from states.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades breadth of consumer-protective uniformity for limits on local authority and imposes new compliance burdens on providers: it seeks to protect small sellers through standardized disclosures, but those same rules could be gamed by contractual labeling or drive providers to restrict small-ticket factoring if compliance costs or legal uncertainty rise — forcing a choice between a simpler national floor and the risk of reduced market access or regulatory gaps.
Implementation raises predictable but important questions. The statute hinges on whether a provider is ‘‘engaged in interstate commerce’’; in practice, that will determine coverage for many regional factors and could invite litigation or regulatory guidance about the conduct that suffices to meet the interstate-commerce predicate.
The requirement to estimate aggregate authorized factoring when a contract omits a cap creates compliance complexity: providers must adopt a defensible method for ‘‘reasonable belief’’ determinations or risk inadvertent noncompliance.
The conclusive treatment of parties’ characterization as a true sale simplifies coverage decisions but may be exploitable. Treating labels as definitive could allow parties to avoid disclosure obligations by structuring economically identical transactions outside the statute’s factoring definition, or conversely to pull transactions into the statute by simply labeling them sales.
The $10,000 worked example forces transparency but also creates a drafting challenge: factors must choose assumptions (timing, which fees apply, maximum reserve) and those assumptions will materially affect the example’s usefulness and potential for consumer litigation over misleading illustrations. Finally, federal preemption standardizes disclosure requirements but may block state innovations that respond to local market problems or abusive practices not contemplated by the Act.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.