The transcript of the video follows below for further review.
CASE BRIEF: An SBA guarantor can be discharged from personal liability under California state U.C.C. law to the extent that the lender or the SBA (as assignee) unjustifiably impairs any collateral pledged as security for the SBA loan even though the SBA Unconditional Guarantee Agreement contains an express waiver of such a defense.
CASE NAME: Alcock v. SBA
CITATION: 50 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. Cal. 1995)
FACTS:
Top Pac Growers and Shippers ("Top Pac"), a tomato packing and shipping company, borrowed $600,000 from Crocker Bank secured by a note guaranteed by the SBA for seventy-five percent of the amount due (SBA Note). On the same day, Crocker extended Top Pac an additional $ 500,000 line of credit ("Crocker Line"). The SBA was secured by a first deed of trust to the real property at one of Top Pac plant locations. Crocker was secured by a deed of trust on the real property, subordinated to the SBA first-priority deed. Crocker and the SBA were also secured by a perfected security interest in Top Pac's equipment; in its intangible assets; and by the personal guaranties of several parties, including Charles Alcock, a Top Pac stockholder.
Prior to closing on the loans, Crocker Bank informed the SBA that it was not willing to advance the $500,000 line of credit if it only had the second lien on the real property. The SBA agreed to subordinate its interest in the real to that of Crocker Bank on September 29, 1982, retaining the first-priority interest in the equipment. The SBA entered into this new agreement because it felt adequately collateralized by the interest in the equipment and the net worth of the guarantors. The guarantors were not informed of the change in priority of the real estate liens.
In the spring of 1984, Top Pac defaulted on the loan. The SBA honored its guaranty to Crocker Bank, and the SBA Note was assigned to it. The SBA declined any interest in the real property. Crocker foreclosed on the real property in March 1985 and purchased it for only $130,000 at a trustee's sale in partial satisfaction of the amount owed on the Crocker Bank Line of Credit.
BRIEF OVERVIEW:
Charles Alcock (Guarantor on the SBA loan) argued that the bankruptcy panel committed error in allowing, in a chapter 11 proceeding, the SBA claim on a loan deficiency. The guarantor urged his discharge from the guaranty obligation because the SBA unjustifiably impaired the collateral, both land and equipment, disposed of it in a commercially unreasonable manner, and failed to give him notice of the disposition.
Citing to California Commercial Code Section 3606, the court agreed. It said that when the SBA's lien on land became subordinated, the land and equipment could not be sold as a going concern and the market value as a whole fell. While the subordination was justified with respect to Top Pac as an obligor, it prejudiced any guarantor, including Charles Alcock. The court further ruled that the SBA guaranty agreement did not act to waive the guarantor's impairment-of-collateral defense under Section 3606, and that Alcock's discharge from personal liability under the SBA Unconditional Guarantee, pursuant to Section 3606(1)(b), was completely due to the difficulty in measuring monetary loss.
OUTCOME:
The order allowing a claim by the SBA for a deficiency on a loan that Charles Alcock signed as a guarantor was reversed, because the SBA agreement to a later lien subordination only on land, not equipment, severely prejudiced the SBA guarantor when the entire property could not be sold as a going concern and the market value as a whole fell.
If you are facing an SBA loan default, contact us today for a FREE initial consultation with an experienced SBA workout attorney at 888-756-9969.
We analyze your SBA loan problems and advise you on potential solutions such as an SBA offer in compromise for your SBA loan default or SBA personal guarantee.
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.
Clients obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for their small business in the amount of $298,000. They pledged their primary residence and personal guarantees as direct collateral for the loan. The business failed, the lender was paid the 7(a) guaranty money and the debt was assigned to the SBA. Clients received the Official 60-Day Notice giving them a couple of options to resolve the debt balance directly with the SBA before referral to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service. The risk of referral to Treasury would add nearly $95,000 to the SBA principal loan balance. With the default interest rate at 7.5%, the amount of money to pay toward interest was projected at $198,600. Clients hired the Firm with only 4 days left to respond to the 60-Day due process notice. Because the clients were not eligible for an Offer in Compromise (OIC) due to the significant equity in their home and the SBA lien encumbering it, the Firm Attorneys proposed a Structured Workout to resolve the SBA debt. After back and forth negotiations, the SBA Loan Specialist assigned to the case approved the Workout terms which prevented potential foreclosure of their home, but also saved the clients approximately $294,000 over the agreed-upon Workout term with a waiver of all contractual and statutory administrative fees, collection costs, penalties, and interest.
Clients personally guaranteed SBA 7(a) loan balance of over $300,000. Clients also pledged their homes as additional collateral. SBA OIC accepted $87,000 with the full lien release against the home.
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.
.jpg)
