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.
Small business and guarantors obtained an SBA COVID-EIDL loan for $1,000,000. Clients defaulted causing SBA to charge-off the loan, accelerate the balance and refer the debt to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service for collection. Treasury added nearly $500,000 in collection fees totaling $1,500,000. Clients were served with the SBA's Official 60-Day Notice and exercised the Repayment option by applying for the SBA’s Hardship Accommodation Plan. However, their application was summarily rejected by the SBA without providing any meaningful reasons. Clients hired the Firm to represent them against the SBA, Treasury and a Private Collection Agency. After securing government records through discovery, we filed an Appeals Petition with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) court challenging the SBA's referral of the debt to Treasury. During litigation and before the OHA court issued a final Decision and Order, the Firm successfully negotiated a reinstatement and recall of the loan back to the SBA, a modification of the original repayment terms, termination of Treasury's enforced collection and removal of the 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.
Client personally guaranteed SBA 7(a) loan balance of $58,000. The client received a notice of Intent to initiate Administrative Wage Garnishment (AWG) Proceedings. We represented the client at the hearing and successfully defeated the AWG Order based on several legal and equitable grounds.
.jpg)
