Filing bankruptcy may not solve your SBA loan default problems. Aside from other financial considerations, the government may still be able to offset against your assets.
https://youtu.be/0pnEtQEabCs
The Bankruptcy Code preserves a creditor’s right to setoff. Section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section and sections 362 and 363 of this title, this title does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case.
Setoff requires mutuality in that the indebtedness must be between the same parties. For bankruptcy purposes, this generally requires that both debts (i.e., the debt owed by the debtor and the debt owed to the debtor) fall on the same side of the bankruptcy line (i.e., on the same side of the timeline marked by the filing of the petition). That is, with some exceptions, both debts must be prepetition or both debts must be postpetition. Creditors with prepetition setoff rights have a secured claim under section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Federal agencies are authorized to intercept certain federal payments to collect delinquent debt owed to the United States. This includes the authority to offset tax overpayments for debts owed to the United States. This applies only to tax refunds for years before the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection. Offsets for postpetition years are not allowed, unless the debtor owes postpetition debts to the United States.
For a creditor to have setoff rights both the obligation of the creditor to the debtor and the debtor’s obligation to the creditor must arise prior to the petition date. While the most common example of when both obligations would arise prepetition in the federal debt collection context is when the debtor has made overpayments of federal tax in the year preceding its bankruptcy filing, there are other circumstances where an obligation of the United States may arise prior to the petition date. For example, certain portions of a federal salary payment may have accrued to the debtor prior to the petition date, and to the extent the debtor owed the United States a federal debt prior to the petition date, the United States would have setoff rights with regard to those portions of the federal salary payment. The same would be true for retirement payments, vendor payments, and tort payments, to the extent the right to those payments arose prior to the petition date. To the extent a creditor agency is aware of a federal payment to which the debtor is entitled, the agency should analyze whether its setoff rights have been preserved by the Bankruptcy Code.
If you are facing an SBA loan default, contact Protect Law Group today at www.sba-attorneys.com or 1-888-756-9969 to schedule your initial consultation.
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 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.
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.
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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
