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 personally guaranteed SBA 7(a) loan for $150,000. COVID-19 caused the business to fail, and the loan went into default with a balance of $133,000. Client initially hired a non-attorney consultant to negotiate an OIC. The SBA summarily rejected the ineligible OIC and the debt was referred to Treasury’s ureau of Fiscal Service for enforced collection in the debt amount of $195,000. We were hired to intervene and initiated discovery for SBA and Fiscal Service records. We were able to recall the case from Fiscal Service back to the SBA. We then negotiated a structured workout with favorable terms that saves the client approximately $198,000 over the agreed-upon workout term by waiving contractual and statutory administrative fees, collection costs, penalties, and interest.
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' 7(a) loan was referred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service for enforced collection in 2015. They not only personally guaranteed the loan, but also pledged their primary residence as additional collateral. One of the clients filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy thinking that it would discharge the SBA 7(a) lien encumbering their home. They later discovered that they were mistakenly advised. The Firm was subsequently hired to review their case and defend against a series of collection actions. Eventually, we were able to negotiate a structured workout for $180,000 directly with the SBA, saving them approximately $250,000 (by reducing the default interest rate and removing Treasury's substantial collection fees) and from possible foreclosure.
.jpg)
