SBA Chief Maria Contreras-Sweet's Commencement Speech At Whittier
Protect Law Group has the legal expertise to guide you through the SBA offer in compromise process and help successfully resolve your SBA loan problems.
Contact Our SBA Attorneys for Nationwide Representation of SBA and Treasury Debt Problems
Book a Consultation CallWe provide individuals with solutions whose SBA loan problems & other federal non-tax debts are referred to Treasury for aggressive collection. We employ practical strategies to resolve your Treasury collection problems and teach you about submitting a Compromise Offer.
On October 7, 2012, the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, issued Treasury Order 136-01 which consolidated and re-designated the bureaus formerly known as the Bureau of the Public Debt and the Financial Management Service as the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
This Order delegated to the Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the authority that was previously delegated to the Commissioner of the Public Debt and the Commissioner, Financial Management Service.
As a result of this Treasury Order, all federal non-tax delinquent debts are now serviced and collected by this special Bureau of the Treasury Department.
If your federal non-tax delinquent debt (e.g. SBA loan, SEC debt, FCC debt, USDA loan etc.) has been transferred to the Department of the Treasury (DoT) from an existing federal creditor agency, it will be aggressively serviced and collected by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).
BFS can use those aggressive collection tools available to all federal agencies pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Some of the aggressive collection tools available for Treasury debt defense are:
If your federal non-tax debt has been referred to the BFS for cross-servicing, is is critically important for you as a borrower, obligor or guarantor to hire qualified Federal Agency Practitioners who can help defend you against some of the Bureau’s most aggressive collection actions as noted above.
Because practice before the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Fiscal Service requires specific knowledge and understanding of several core areas of law and process, most notably (1) the federal agency maze, (2) federal administrative law and procedure, (3) constitutional law requirements, (4) federal administrative litigation, (5) federal administrative hearing representation and appeals, (6) federal agency rules and internal procedures of the referring federal creditor agency which originated the federal non-tax debt, (7) federal collection defense representation, (8) Department of Justice collateral liquidation and collection litigation defense, (9) bankruptcy law and asset exemptions and (10) DoT compromise and negotiation tactics, it is very important that you conduct your due diligence and choose your professional representatives wisely.
If your federal agency practitioners are not authorized to practice before the federal agencies pursuant to the Agency Practice Act and do not have experience with the core areas as identified above (and all non-attorney federal agency representatives do not have the necessary qualification as they neither have the education, training or, most importantly, the actual license to legally practice within the scope of these parameters), then “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware.”
As a result of this Treasury Order, all federal non-tax delinquent debts are now serviced and collected by this special Bureau of the Treasury Department.
If your federal non-tax delinquent debt (e.g. SBA loan, SEC debt, FCC debt, USDA loan etc.) has been transferred to the Department of the Treasury (DoT) from an existing federal creditor agency, it will be aggressively serviced and collected by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).
BFS can use those aggressive collection tools available to all federal agencies pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Some of the aggressive collection tools available for Treasury debt defense are:
If your federal non-tax debt has been referred to the BFS for cross-servicing, is is critically important for you as a borrower, obligor or guarantor to hire qualified Federal Agency Practitioners who can help defend you against some of the Bureau’s most aggressive collection actions as noted above.
Because practice before the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Fiscal Service requires specific knowledge and understanding of several core areas of law and process, most notably (1) the federal agency maze, (2) federal administrative law and procedure, (3) constitutional law requirements, (4) federal administrative litigation, (5) federal administrative hearing representation and appeals, (6) federal agency rules and internal procedures of the referring federal creditor agency which originated the federal non-tax debt, (7) federal collection defense representation, (8) Department of Justice collateral liquidation and collection litigation defense, (9) bankruptcy law and asset exemptions and (10) DoT compromise and negotiation tactics, it is very important that you conduct your due diligence and choose your professional representatives wisely.
If your federal agency practitioners are not authorized to practice before the federal agencies pursuant to the Agency Practice Act and do not have experience with the core areas as identified above (and all non-attorney federal agency representatives do not have the necessary qualification as they neither have the education, training or, most importantly, the actual license to legally practice within the scope of these parameters), then “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware.”
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.
Client’s small business obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $150,000. He and his wife signed personal guarantees and pledged their home as collateral. The SBA loan went into default, the term or maturity date was accelerated and demand for payment of the entire amount claimed was made. The SBA lender’s note gave it the right to adjust the default interest rate from 7.25% to 18% per annum. The business filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but was dismissed after 3 years due to its inability to continue with payments under the plan. Clients wanted to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would have been a mistake as their home had significant equity to repay the SBA loan balance in full as the Trustee would likely seize and sell the home to repay the secured and unsecured creditors. However, the SBA lender opted to pursue the SBA 7(a) Guaranty and subsequently assigned the loan and the right to enforce collection to the SBA. Clients then received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice and hired the Firm to respond to it and negotiate on their behalf. Clients disputed the SBA’s alleged balance of $148,000, as several payments made to the SBA lender during the Chapter 11 reorganization were not accounted for. To challenge the SBA’s claimed debt balance, the Firm Attorneys initiated expedited discovery to obtain government records. SBA records disclosed the true amount owed was about $97,000. Moreover, because the Clients’ home had significant equity, they were not eligible for an Offer in Compromise or an immediate Release of Lien for Consideration, despite being incorrectly advised by non-attorney consulting companies that they were. Instead, our Firm Attorneys recommended a Workout of $97,000 spread over a lengthy term and a waiver of the applicable interest rate making the monthly payment affordable. After back and forth negotiations, SBA approved the Workout proposal, thereby saving the home from imminent foreclosure and reducing the Clients' liability by nearly $81,000 in incorrect principal balance, accrued interest, and statutory collection fees.
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)
