What Is SBA Loan Forgiveness and How Does It Work?
Learn how SBA loan forgiveness works and how it can help small business owners facing financial difficulties. Contact us today for a case evaluation.
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 obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $324,000 to buy a small business and its facility. The business and real estate had an appraisal value of $318,000 at the time of purchase. The business ultimately failed but the participating lender abandoned the business equipment and real estate collateral even though it had valid security liens. As a result, the lender recouped nearly nothing from the pledged collateral, leaving the business owners liable for the deficiency balance. The SBA paid the lender the 7(a) guaranty money and was assigned ownership of the debt, including the right to collect. However, the clients never received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice and were denied the opportunity to negotiate an Offer in Compromise (OIC) or a Workout directly with the SBA before being transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service, which added an additional $80,000 in collection fees. Treasury garnished and offset the clients' wages, federal salary and social security benefits. When the clients tried to negotiate with Treasury by themselves, they were offered an unaffordable repayment plan which would have caused severe financial hardship. Clients subsequently hired the Firm to litigate an Appeals Petition before the SBA Office & Hearings Appeals (OHA) challenging the legal enforceability and amount of the debt. The Firm successfully negotiated a term OIC that was approved by the SBA Office of General Counsel, saving the clients approximately $205,000.
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)
