Congress passed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”) to make Chapter 11 reorganization easier for small businesses. The law created a new Subchapter V in Chapter 11 that a debtor could opt into by making an election.
The SBRA law became effective in February 2020. In March, Congress increased the eligibility limit to businesses with up to $7,500,000 in debt for at least a year. Many, if not most, chapter 11 filings could qualify.
The law gives debtors important tools:
- No creditors committee
- No competing plan
- A standing trustee
- Cheaper and easier plan confirmation, without voting
- Removal of creditor barriers to a debtor’s plan
- Modification of business loans secured by the debtor’s home
There is now a “$64,000 question” – is the law retroactive? The statute said it was effective on February 19, 2020 and the $7.5 million debt limit was effective on March 27, 2020. On its face then, the new law does not apply to pending cases. But, can debtors who filed their cases before either of those dates take advantage of the new law? If so, how, and how can creditors respond?
Four bankruptcy courts have held that debtors who filed their bankruptcy cases before February 19, 2020 may take advantage of the SBRA. None of them have addressed whether the $7.5 million debt limit may be applied retroactively. But some have held that retroactivity is not really the issue, and that the law should be applied as of the time the court makes a ruling, so it is possible that courts could apply the increased debt limit to debtors who filed their bankruptcy cases before March 27, 2020. Even if the two new statutes are not retroactive, a debtor could simply dismiss its bankruptcy case and refile it, as one of the bankruptcy courts encouraged the debtor to do.
The SBRA provides little to no benefits to creditors. So creditors should strongly consider challenging a debtor’s election of Subchapter V. The bankruptcy court decisions are not binding on any other court and there are good arguments that those decisions are wrong. And the argument that the increase in the debt limit is not retroactive is even stronger because that statute only applies to cases commenced “on or after the date of enactment.”
When a court allows a debtor to proceed under the SBRA, creditors will need to be more aggressive than they are in a typical Chapter 11 in order to regain some of the ground given up by SBRA, especially because there is no right to propose a competing plan and creditors don’t get to vote on the debtor’s plan. Creditors will have to register their disapproval by filing creative objections to plan confirmation.
If a creditor is in a hotly contested small business Chapter 11 case that was filed before the SBRA became effective, the creditor should anticipate the potential for a debtor’s amended petition that would elect Subchapter V. The cases considering the issue at least give some consideration to how the change would affect the creditors’ rights and remedies. Additionally, a creditor might agree to treatment in a pending small business chapter 11 case that is less debtor-friendly than a plan confirmed under Subchapter V to avoid the risk of a more aggressive debtor strategy. This is an area where the cases are likely to develop quickly, and where looking outside the confines of a particular case or court is important. Lewis Roca lawyers are ready to help you do so.
For more information, please contact Rob Charles at rcharles@lewisroca.com, Justin Henderson at jhenderson@lewisroca.com or visit our website at lewisroca.com.
Tags: Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights, COVID-19 Rapid Response Team- Partner
Rob is always present. He is committed to you and your matters and is available when you need him. He will find a solution.
Rob Charles is a partner and leader in the firm’s Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights Practice Group, practicing throughout Arizona and Nevada. He represents clients in ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam