Contact Our SBA Attorneys for Nationwide Representation of SBA and Treasury Debt Problems
Book a Consultation CallCross-Servicing is a consolidated government-wide program operated by Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS) that fulfills the requirement of The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) to collect delinquent, non-tax debt on behalf of federal agencies. As required by the DCIA, an agency must refer any eligible debt more than 180 days delinquent to Fiscal Service for cross-servicing.
As part of the Cross-Servicing program, BFS must take appropriate action to service, collect, compromise, or suspend or terminate collection action on the debt. BFS encourages federal creditor agencies (agencies to whom debt is owed) to transfer all eligible delinquent debts for debt collection services before they are delinquent 180 days. Agencies are strongly encouraged to use all available debt collection tools.
The DATA Act changed the notice requirement for federal agencies to notify the Treasury Secretary of past due, nontax debts for the purposes of administrative offset from 180 days to 120 days.
In order to transfer a federal agency debt (such as a defaulted SBA loan) to BFS, the parties must execute and comply with the applicable Annual Debt Certification Agreement between the federal agencies.
The Cross-Servicing Dispute presents an avenue to release your debt from the clutches of the Treasury Department’s blackhole and back to the SBA or originating federal agency. In most cases, it is necessary to return the debt to the SBA or other originating federal agency given the Treasury’s extreme reluctance to compromise debts referred to it.
The Cross-Servicing Dispute must present facts, evidence and legal arguments establishing that your debt should have never been transferred to the Treasury. If successful, this strategy accomplishes two (2) goals: 1. It can eliminate the 28% to 30% “collection fee” that Treasury adds to your debt; and 2. It can transfer the debt back to the SBA or other originating agency, which potentially means a more realistic offer in compromise.
In order for the SBA or other federal agency to transfer your debt to the Department of Treasury, an employee of the SBA must certify, in writing, that the debt being transferred is valid, legally enforceable, and that there are no legal bars to collection. Creditor agencies, such as the SBA, must also certify that they have complied with all prerequisites to a particular collection action under the laws, regulations or policies applicable to the agency unless the creditor agency has requested, and the Department of Treasury has agreed, to do so on the creditor agency's behalf.
Thus, it is important to obtain a copy of the applicable Annual Debt Certification Agreement, as the provisions contained in this Agreement, often form the basis upon which to file or submit a formal petition for a Cross-Servicing Dispute. Generally, you would want to investigate whether you can challenge the cross-servicing of the debt from the federal creditor agency to the Treasury Department’s BFS. Some of these challenges could be based on arguments and evidence that the debt is not valid or legally enforceable, that your due process rights were violated and/or that the administrative fees, interest and/or penalties are inequitable.
You can view a Cross-Servicing Dispute Form by clicking: CSD Form
The Cross-Servicing Dispute is not as simple as asking Treasury to return the debt. We do not recommend that you simply try disputing your debt by yourself. Instead, it would be better if you hire us to investigate the grounds for a possible cross-servicing dispute, and where applicable, formally prepare a Petition for Cross-Servicing Dispute on your behalf and process your case through the federal agency’s administrative appeals channels. You need an experienced attorney to gather and analyze documents, evidence and apply legal arguments. Our aggressive attorneys know what evidence and facts to look for and how to apply legal theories to support your Cross-Servicing Dispute.
Contact us today for a Case Evaluation.
Client's small business obtained an SBA COVID EIDL for $301,000 pledging collateral by executing the Note, Unconditional Guarantee and Security Agreement. The business defaulted on the loan and the SBA CESC called the Note and Guarantee, accelerated the principal balance due, accrued interest and retracted the 30-year term schedule.
The loan was transferred to the Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service which resulted in the statutory addition of $90,000+ in administrative fees, costs, penalties and interest with the total debt now at $391.000+. Treasury also initiated a Treasury Offset Program (TOP) levy against the client's federal contractor payments for the full amount each month - intercepting all of its revenue and pushing the business to the brink of bankruptcy.
The Firm was hired to investigate and find an alternate solution to the bankruptcy option. After submitting formal production requests for all government records, it was discovered that the SBA failed to send the required Official 60-Day Pre-Referral Notice to the borrower and guarantor prior to referring the debt to Treasury. This procedural due process violation served as the basis to submit a Cross-Servicing Dispute to recall the debt from Treasury back to the SBA and to negotiate a reinstatement of the original 30-year maturity date, a modified workout, cessation of the TOP levy against the federal contractor payments and removal of the $90,000+ Treasury-based collection fees, interest and penalties.
Client personally guaranteed SBA 7(a) loan for $350,000. The small business failed but because of the personal guarantee liability, the client continued to pay the monthly principal & interest out-of-pocket draining his savings. The client hired a local attorney but quickly realized that he was not familiar with SBA-backed loans or their standard operating procedures. Our firm was subsequently hired after the client received the SBA's official 60-day notice. After back-and-forth negotiations, we were able to convince the SBA to reinstate the loan, retract the acceleration of the outstanding balance, modify the original terms, and approve a structured workout reducing the interest rate from 7.75% to 0% and extending the maturity date for a longer period to make the monthly payments affordable. In conclusion, not only we were able to help the client avoid litigation and bankruptcy, but our SBA lawyers also saved him approximately $227,945 over the term of the workout.
Clients borrowed and personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan. Clients defaulted on the SBA loan and were sued in federal district court for breach of contract. The SBA lender demanded the Client pledge several personal real estate properties as collateral to reinstate and secure the defaulted SBA loan. We were subsequently hired to intervene and aggressively defend the lawsuit. After several months of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a reinstatement of the SBA loan and a structured workout that did not involve any liens against the Client's personal real estate holdings.
.jpg)
.jpeg)
