SBA OIC: Deferment v. Liquidation
Dealing with an SBA OIC case can be hard, this is why you should allow one of our lawyers to settle your SBA debt. Talk to us about your SBA loan default.
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.
Clients executed several trust deeds pledging seven (7) real estate properties and unconditional personal guarantees for an SBA 7(a) loan from the participating lender. The clients' small business failed and eventually defaulted on repayment of the loan exposing all collateral pledged by the clients. The SBA subsequently acquired the loan balance from the lender, including the right to liquidate and collect all pledged collateral pursuant to the trust deed instruments.
The Firm was hired to negotiate separate release of lien proposals for all 7 real estate properties. In preparation for the work assignment, the Firm Attorneys initiated discovery to secure records from the SBA and Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service. After reviewing the records and understanding the interplay between the lender and the SBA, the attorneys then prepared, submitted and negotiated the release of lien (ROL) for each of the 7 real estate properties for consideration.
After submitting the proposals, the assigned SBA Loan Specialists approved each ROL package - significantly reducing the total SBA debt claimed.
Client’s small business obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $750,000. She and her husband signed personal guarantees exposing all of their non-exempt income and assets. With just 18 months left on the maturity date and payment on the remaining balance, the Great Recession of 2008 hit, which ultimately caused the business to fail and default on the loan terms. The 7(a) lender accelerated and sent a demand for full payment of the remaining loan balance. The SBA lender’s note allowed for a default interest rate of about 7% per year. In response to the lender's aggressive collection action, Client's husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in an attempt to protect against their personal assets. However, his bankruptcy discharge did not relieve the Client's personal guarantee liability for the SBA debt. The SBA lender opted to pursue the SBA 7(a) Guaranty and subsequently assigned the loan and the right to enforce collection against the Client to the SBA. The Client then received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice. After conducting a Case Evaluation with her, she then hired the Firm to respond and negotiate on her behalf with just 34 days left before the impending referral to Treasury. The Client wanted to dispute the SBA’s alleged debt balance as stated in the 60-Day Notice by claiming the 7(a) lender failed to liquidate business collateral in a commercially reasonable manner - which if done properly - proceeds would have paid back the entire debt balance. However, due to time constraints, waivers contained in the SBA loan instruments, including the fact the Client was not able to inspect the SBA's records for investigation purposes before the remaining deadline, Client agreed to submit a Structured Workout for the alleged balance in response to the Official 60-Day Notice as she was not eligible for an Offer in Compromise (OIC) because of equity in non-exempt income and assets. After back and forth negotiations, the SBA Loan Specialist approved the Workout proposal, reducing the Client's purported liability by nearly $142,142.27 in accrued interest, and statutory collection fees. Without the Firm's intervention and subsequent approval of the Workout proposal, the Client's debt amount (with accrued interest, Treasury's statutory collection fee and Treasury's interest based on the Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR) would have been nearly $291,030.
.jpg)
