Watch the video of this article here:
https://youtu.be/GlmkDLaz8Uw
Often times, SBA debtors who have signed personal guarantees associated with an SBA Loan Agreement think that simply filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is the proverbial “golden ticket” to fix the SBA loan problems and get out of personal liability with an SBA loan default. However, just because an SBA debtor files for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy versus an SBA Offer in Compromise, does not mean that the debtor is “out of the woods.”
Banks and lenders try to find ways to create or maintain superior leverage even though an SBA debtor threatens to file for bankruptcy protection after an SBA loan default. However, the story does not end with a mere electronic or paper filing. Lenders and their attorneys do scrutinize the Chapter 7 petition pre-filing actions of SBA debtors to discover if distressed SBA debtors have improperly disposed of collateral, transferred property or other reachable assets through "quitclaim" or other suspicious "gift" transactions to family, friends or other third parties to keep them from their reaches.
Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtors, in their filings, are required to disclose to the United States Trustee all of their assets, liabilities, income, and any anticipated increase in income. Any intentional failure to do so, can not only expose the SBA debtors to the adversarial complaint process and disqualify their discharge of certain debts, but can also also initiate possible referrals to the United States Department of Justice for criminal fraud and may even result in a filing of federal indictment with multiple counts of bankruptcy fraud for concealing and knowingly making false oaths and declarations.
Additionally, SBA debtors may have made misrepresentations in the origination of the SBA loan and during the servicing and work out stages with the Lender or SBA in their financial statements and written submissions to them. Lenders review these materials as part of their due diligence to protect their rights to collect on the SBA Guaranty and mitigate further damage to its and the SBA's recovery efforts.
In such instances, there may also be grounds by the Lenders (and even the SBA) to object to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge or otherwise contest the bankruptcy in its entirety when borrowers or SBA loan guarantors engage in any such malfeasance. In these cases, adversarial proceedings in bankruptcy can be the forum through which lenders can resolve any guaranty affecting deficiencies contained within their files.
Dealing with the idea that you might be facing SBA loan default can be terrifying. The SBA attorneys in our office are skilled at helping clients understand all facets of their situations. If, for instance, you need to know what an SBA offer in compromise is, you can simply ask your lawyer. You should never face SBA loan problems alone. It is important to retain the services of an attorney who can help you through this difficult time in your life. We urge you to read about the services that we have available and to contact us if you believe that we can be of assistance to you right now.
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 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 received the SBA's Official 60-Day Notice for a loan that was obtained by her small business in 2001. The SBA loan went into default in 2004 but after hearing nothing from the SBA lender or the SBA for 20 years, out of the blue, she received the SBA's collection due process notice which provided her with only one of four options: (1) repay the entire accelerated balance immediately; (2) negotiate a repayment arrangement; (3) challenge the legal enforceability of the debt with evidence; or (4) request an OHA hearing before a U.S. Administrative Law Judge.
Client hired the Firm to represent her with only 13 days left before the expiration deadline to respond to the SBA's Official 60-Day Notice. The Firm attorneys immediately researched the SBA's Official loan database to obtain information regarding the 7(a) loan. Thereafter, the Firm attorneys conducted legal research and asserted certain affirmative defenses challenging the legal enforceability of the debt. A written response was timely filed to the 60-Day Notice with the SBA subsequently agreeing with the client's affirmative defenses and legal arguments. As a result, the SBA rendered a decision immediately terminating collection of the debt against the client's alleged personal guarantee liability saving her $50,000.
.jpg)
