We are attorneys that exclusively work on SBA OIC cases and other federal debt issues.
Book a Consultation CallThe Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court, pursuant to an enforcement action brought by the United States Trustee, ordered sanctions and issued an injunction against a bankruptcy petition preparer in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The case can be found here. The petition preparer, Pinnacle Financial Consulting, LLC (“Pinnacle”) along with its owner, were ordered to pay monetary sanctions, return money to bankruptcy debtors and were enjoined from filing any future bankruptcy petitions in Massachusetts.
The gist of the U.S. Trustee’s complaint and the Court’s findings was that Pinnacle engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when it charged consumers for the preparation of bankruptcy petitions. There were no lawyers at Pinnacle. However, the fact that Pinnacle’s president went to law school (but never was admitted to the bar) was used to suggest to consumers that the company had legal expertise. In fact, Pinnacle touted a “Pinnacle System” that it suggested had significant value. Non-attorney bankruptcy petition preparers are not illegal, per se, but they are not allowed to advise clients or do anything more than simply type forms. By emphasizing its supposed expertise, Pinnacle was acting as more than just a typist, and it encroached on a province only allowed to licensed attorneys.
It turns out for good reason. Consumers are usually harmed by operators who talk a good game but who are unregulated and unaccountable. In this case, Pinnacle falsely advertised its discharge rate, and it also guided clients on how to claim the Minnesota exemptions instead those in place here in Massachusetts.
It is in immigrant communities, like Lawrence, Massachusetts, that these types of organizations usually thrive. In Latino communities, especially, such organizations have a special ability to mislead because, in certain Latin American countries, the popular term “notario” has a very different meaning from the term “notary” here. To help protect consumers, the U.S. Trustee should consider bringing more enforcement actions of this nature.
Though consumers sometimes think that the bankruptcy systems will protect them simply because they are needy and hard-up, that is not always the case. Bankruptcy is an adversarial process, and there is little recourse for a consumer who loses property or has his case dismissed due to filing errors or poor strategic choices.
In the SBA context, there are many non-attorney firms advertising their SBA loan debt resolution services. However, as noted above, the same argument can apply and questions need to be answered as such, "can non-attorney bankers or former disbarred attorneys represent an SBA debtor's interest when he or she is not authorized to advise on legal matters such as SBA administrative law (i.e. SBA SOPs, Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), federal law, bankruptcy issues and exemptions) or appeal your case to the SBA Office of Hearing & Appeals and be able to argue SBA OHA decisions and other procedural and substantive legal issues before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)?"
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 $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.
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 borrowed and personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan. Clients defaulted on the SBA loan and were sued in federal district court for breach of contract. The SBA lender demanded the Client pledge several personal real estate properties as collateral to reinstate and secure the defaulted SBA loan. We were subsequently hired to intervene and aggressively defend the lawsuit. After several months of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a reinstatement of the SBA loan and a structured workout that did not involve any liens against the Client's personal real estate holdings.
.jpg)
