Learn how a Cross-Servicing Dispute can help businesses challenge the transfer of their debt to the Treasury, potentially eliminating hefty collection fees and returning the debt to a more favorable agency.
Book a Consultation CallCross-Servicing is a government-wide program managed by the Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service (BFS), designed to collect delinquent non-tax debts on behalf of federal agencies. This program fulfills the requirements set out in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). Under the DCIA, any eligible debt that remains delinquent for more than 180 days must be referred to BFS for cross-servicing.
However, when debts are transferred to the Treasury, personal guarantors often face severe consequences, including steep collection fees. If you have a defaulted SBA loan or another federal debt that has been transferred to Treasury, disputing this transfer could save you from the significant financial burden imposed by the Treasury. This process, known as a Cross-Servicing Dispute, may be your best avenue to reduce fees and work with more favorable terms.
As part of the Cross-Servicing program, the Treasury’s BFS is responsible for taking appropriate actions to collect, compromise, or suspend debt collection, or in some cases, terminate collection efforts. While agencies are encouraged to use available tools to collect debts before the 180-day mark, once the debt is referred, it becomes more difficult to negotiate or compromise, especially since Treasury adds a significant collection fee, ranging from 28% to 30% of the debt amount.
Moreover, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act) shortened the window for federal agencies to notify the Treasury of past-due debts from 180 days to 120 days, accelerating the process.
A Cross-Servicing Dispute provides an opportunity to challenge the transfer of your debt to the Treasury. In most cases, the Treasury is reluctant to compromise on debts, making it essential to return the debt to the originating agency, such as the SBA. Successfully disputing the debt transfer can provide two key benefits:
To initiate a Cross-Servicing Dispute, you must present evidence, facts, and legal arguments that demonstrate the debt should not have been transferred to the Treasury in the first place. Common grounds for dispute include:
To transfer a federal agency debt (such as a defaulted SBA loan) to the Treasury, the originating agency (e.g., SBA) must certify in writing that the debt is valid and legally enforceable. They must also confirm that all legal prerequisites to collection have been met. If these certifications were incorrect or improperly completed, they can serve as a basis for your dispute.
The first step in disputing your debt is to obtain a copy of the Annual Debt Certification Agreement between the federal agency and the Treasury. This document outlines the conditions for debt transfer and often contains provisions that can be challenged. A successful dispute typically requires an in-depth investigation into whether the debt was legally valid, whether proper procedures were followed, and whether any errors occurred during the transfer process.
If you're considering filing a Cross-Servicing Dispute, it is highly recommended that you seek legal assistance. The process involves gathering evidence, analyzing legal documents, and presenting formal arguments to federal agencies. Attempting to handle this on your own can result in missed opportunities to present the strongest case.
Disputing a debt transferred to Treasury requires expertise in federal debt collection laws and administrative procedures. At Protect Law Group, our attorneys have years of experience in SBA loan workouts, debt resolution, and Cross-Servicing Disputes. We will help:
We understand what evidence to look for, how to build a strong case, and how to navigate the complex bureaucratic system to maximize your chances of success.
If your debt has been transferred to the Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service, don't wait until the situation worsens. A Cross-Servicing Dispute could help you avoid excessive collection fees and return your debt to a more manageable agency. Contact Protect Law Group today to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys.
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’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.
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.
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.
.jpg)
