The SBA Doesn't Track State by State SBA Loan Defaults
We will analyze your SBA loan problems and advise you on potential solutions such as an SBA offer in compromise for your SBA loan default.
The transcript of the video follows below for further review.
Are SBA Loan Debts Dischargeable in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy?
The short answer to this commonly-asked question is – generally, yes. But, there are significant risks that SBA business owners, SBA guarantors and SBA obligors should be aware of before making the final decision of filing for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to discharge an SBA guaranteed loan.
Question: What significant risks can materialize if an SBA debtor files bankruptcy to discharge an SBA loan debt associated with an SBA Unconditional Guarantee?
Answer: The most significant risk that can occur is where the SBA 7(a) Lender, Certified Development Corporation (CDC) or the SBA files a Complaint initiating an Adversary Proceeding under 11 U.S.C.A. § 523(a)(2)(B) in response to an SBA debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing.
Question: What are the allegations that can accompany a Complaint for an Adversary Proceeding?
Answer: Generally, the Plaintiff (SBA 7(a) Lender, CDC or the SBA) requests the federal bankruptcy court to find that the SBA loan balance is non-dischargeable because the SBA debtor obtained the SBA loan from the Plaintiff fraudulently by providing it with documented misrepresentations or false financial statements regarding the financial condition of the business or of the personal guarantor(s).
The Plaintiff would generally argue that, as a result of the SBA debtor’s fraud or misrepresentation, it has incurred losses in the outstanding amount of the SBA debt, plus costs, interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, for which it seeks a judgment.
Question: What federal laws govern non-dischargability of eligible debts under a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing?
Answer: The non-dischargeability of debts is governed by 11 U.S.C.A. § 523, which provides, in
material part:
(a) A discharge under section 727[5] . . . of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt —
(2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained, by —
…
(B) use of a statement in writing—
(i) that is materially false;
(ii) respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;
(iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money, property, services, or credit reasonably relied; and
(iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive[.]
…
(c)(1) Except as provided . . ., the debtor shall be discharged from a debt of a kind
specified in paragraph (2) . . . of subsection (a) of this section, unless, on request of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, and after notice and a hearing, the court determines such debt to be excepted from discharge under paragraph (2) . . ., as the case may be, of subsection (a) of this section. 11 U.S.C.A. § 523.
Question: What kind of proof must the shown against the SBA debtor in order to convince a court to issue an order of non-dischargeability of an SBA debt?
Answer: In general, a determination of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(B) requires proof that the Plaintiff (SBA 7(a) Lender, CDC or the SBA) loaned money after it reasonably relied upon false financial documents concerning the SBA debtor and/or an insider, provided to it by the SBA debtor either directly or indirectly, and that the SBA debtor intended to deceive the Plaintiff when doing so.
Question: Does fraudulent behavior expose an SBA debtor to criminal charges as well?
Answer: The kinds of behavior required to have an SBA debt be considered not dischargeable can sometimes result in criminal charges.
Where applicable, an SBA debtor can be charged with grand theft or other related fraud in connection with procuring an SBA guaranteed loan.
Question: What other kind of SBA debtor behavior can result in an SBA debt not being discharged in bankruptcy?
Answer: There are two other main kinds of potentially problematic behavior:
Fraud in a fiduciary capacity can be alleged through fraud, trick and device, with a preconceived design and intent, that an SBA debtor misappropriated monies from the Plaintiff SBA 7(a) Lender, CDC or SBA.
The allegations about injury can center around the SBA debtor’s actions and the claim that they were willful, malicious, and the proximate cause of the financial damages.
Question: Does the bankruptcy court have the power to decide whether a disputed claim re an SBA debt be discharged, and to determine the amount an SBA debtor owes?
Answer: Simply put, yes – a bankruptcy court has this power.
Although it's clear that Congress has the power to legislate about bankruptcy under the U.S. Constitution, for decades there have been big debates about how much power bankruptcy judges can have under the Constitution.
The situation was complicated a few years ago by an opinion of the U.S Supreme Court that somewhat restricted the power of bankruptcy judges.
However, the Supreme Court opinion does not apply to non-dischargeability issues, which are firmly within the jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy courts.
If you are considering filing bankruptcy for an SBA loan debt stemming from an SBA Unconditional Guarantee or a Treasury/Bureau of Fiscal Service debt problem, contact us today for an initial consultation with an experienced SBA or Treasury workout attorney at 1-888-756-9969
We can analyze your SBA loan, Treasury/BFS debt or Private Collection Agency problem and advise you on a range of potential solutions.
This presentation contains images that were used under a Creative Commons License. Click here to see the full list of images and attributions:
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan for $100,000 from the lender. The SBA loan went into early default in 2006 less than 12 months from disbursement. The SBA paid the 7(a) guaranty monies to the lender and subsequently acquired the deficiency balance of about $96,000, including the right to collect against the guarantor. However, the SBA sent the Official 60-Day Due Process Notice to the Client's defunct business address instead of his personal residence, which he never received. As a result, the debt was transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service where substantial collection fees were assessed, including accrued interest per the promissory note. Treasury eventually referred the debt to a Private Collection Agency (PCA) - Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. Pioneer sent a demand letter claiming a debt balance of almost $310,000 - a shocking 223% increase from the original loan amount assigned to the SBA. Client's social security disability benefits were seized through the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). Client hired the Firm to represent him as the debt continued to snowball despite seizure of his social security benefits and federal tax refunds as the involuntary payments were first applied to Treasury's collection fees, then to accrued interest with minimal allocation to the SBA principal balance.
We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute (CSD) challenging the referral of the debt to Treasury based on the defective notice sent to the defunct business address. Despite overwhelming evidence proving a violation of the Client's Due Process rights, the SBA still rejected the CSD. As a result, an Appeals Petition was filed with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) Court challenging the SBA decision and its certification the debt was legally enforceable in the amount claimed. After several months of litigation before the SBA OHA Court, our Firm Attorney successfully negotiated an Offer in Compromise (OIC) Term Workout with the SBA Supervising Trial Attorney for $82,000 spread over a term of 74 months at a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Client an estimated $241,000 in Treasury collection fees, accrued interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)), and the PCA contingency fee.
Clients personally guaranteed SBA 504 loan balance of $750,000. Clients also pledged the business’s equipment/inventory and their home as additional collateral. Clients had agreed to a voluntary sale of their home to pay down the balance. We intervened and rejected the proposed home sale. Instead, we negotiated an acceptable term repayment agreement and release of lien on the home.
Clients executed personal and corporate guarantees for an SBA 7(a) loan from a Preferred Lender Provider (PLP). The borrower corporation defaulted on the loan exposing all collateral pledged by the Clients. The SBA subsequently acquired the loan balance from the PLP, including the right to collect against all guarantors. The SBA sent the Official Pre-Referral Notice to the guarantors giving them sixty (60) days to either pay the outstanding balance in full, negotiate a Repayment (Offer in Compromise (OIC) or Structured Workout (SW)), challenge their alleged guarantor liability or file a Request for Hearing (Appeals Petition) with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals.
Because the Clients were not financially eligible for an OIC, they opted for Structured Workout negotiations directly with the SBA before the debt was transferred to the Bureau of Fiscal Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury for enforced collection.
The Firm was hired to negotiate a global Workout Agreement directly with the SBA to resolve the personal and corporate guarantees. After submitting the Structured Workout proposal, the assigned SBA Loan Specialist approved the requested terms in under ten (10) days without any lengthy back and forth negotiations.
The favorable terms of the Workout included an extended maturity at an affordable principal amount, along with a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Clients approximately $181,000 in administrative fees, penalties and interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)) as authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3717(e) had the SBA loan been transferred to BFS.
.jpg)
