Bulletin: SBRA Postscript, the Definition of Income, and Changes to Section 1113(b)(1)(B) and (C)



CARES Act Passed by Senate Increases Eligibility to Small Business Debtors
with Aggregate Debts Up to $7,500,000 And Other Changes

Early last Thursday morning, the Senate passed a substitute for H.R. 748, called the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (the “CARES Act”). The bill passed the House on Friday, and the President is expected to sign it that day. All of the provisions highlighted below would apply only to cases commenced on and after enactment and would “sunset” after one year. Of course, Congress has enacted “sunset” bankruptcy legislation previously that was later extended; for example, the Chapter 12 provisions originally had sunset provisions.

Section 1113(a) of the bill would amend the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA), 11 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq., to increase the eligibility threshold to elect treatment of the case under subchapter V of Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 to businesses with debts of not more than $7,500,000. Other aspects of this standard for eligibility (such as the requirement that not less than 50 percent of the debt arose from the commercial or business activities of the debtor) would remain unchanged. After the sunset date, the eligibility amount would return to $2,725,625.

Section 1113(b)(1)(A) of the bill would amend the definition of income in Bankruptcy Code Chapters 7 and 13 to exclude Coronavirus-related payments from the federal government from being “current monthly income” for purposes of eligibility to file for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7. Current monthly income (“CMI”) is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A) and the means test is set out in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2). Again, this change has a one-year sunset date.

Section 1113(b)(1)(B) of the bill would clarify that the calculation of disposable income for purposes of confirming a chapter 13 plan shall not include coronavirus-related payments. Again, this provision has a one-year sunset date.

Section 1113(b)(1)(C) of the bill would explicitly permit individuals and families currently in chapter 13 to seek payment plan modifications if they are experiencing a material financial hardship due to the coronavirus pandemic, including extending their payments for up to seven years after their initial plan payment was due. Again, this provision has a one-year sunset date.

There are also provisions in the legislation for suspension of student loan payments and interest accrual, applicable to Direct Loans and FEEL loans owned by the Department of Education, and there are many other provisions in the legislation that have impacts on consumers.

See the separate article Covid-19 and the 7 Year Plan, by Ken Siomos.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

November 10, 2019
By William Houston Brown, Editor and Adviser, NACTT Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, Inc. Several Official and Director’s Forms related to bankruptcy filings are revised and some are new, with some already taking effect on October 1, 2019, others to take effect December 1, 2019, and others taking effect February 19, 2020. Several forms have already been updated on April...
December 18, 2022
The Bankruptcy Code produces some difficult results. Sometimes those results pass difficult and extend into problematic. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho crossed well over difficult in In re Clifford, 2022 WL 16727279 (Bankr. D. Id. 2022). The question addressed in Clifford is one that comes up in every Chapter 13 case – how do we calculate “Current...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
January 23, 2022
Requirements and remedies in Rule 3002.1 apply to reverse mortgages as well as conventional mortgages; while discharge of Chapter 13 plan does not discharge a mortgage obligation treated pursuant to § 1325(b)(5), the court may prohibit prospective use of a nondisclosed obligation as grounds for a default. (Waites) In re Legare-Doctor, 2021 WL 5712149 (Bankr. D. S.C. Dec. 1, 2021)...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
October 2, 2022
Debtor’s filing application to extend or impose the automatic stay must comply with the service requirements of Rule 7004 as to all creditors or the stay cannot be imposed or extended. (Johnson) In re Hardy, 2022 WL 1196963 (C.D. Cal. April 21, 2022) Case Summary Kimberly Hardy had a long history in consumer bankruptcy. She had filed eight cases, including...
Molly Pro picture
June 26, 2022
Consider if you will that your client has just filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. They have intelligently chosen to surrender a luxury item - a boat or 4-wheeler or even that extra vehicle they don’t need. Because the creditor would like to preserve the value of the collateral by obtaining possession quickly, they file a Motion for Relief shortly after...
December 22, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Part VII Introduction This series focuses on four bankruptcy-related bills that were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), will be effective February 19, 2020. It appears in its entirety in Appendix B to...
November 21, 2021
TFS Bill Pay has launched a new powerful tool to help you succeed; the Attorney Report Center located in your AttorneyPortal. In the current bankruptcy environment, it is absolutely essential that your firm receives all of the compensation for the valuable work it has already done. TFS now provides you with pre-set, real-time reports to confirm your clients’ payments, which...
May 12, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee (Nashville, TN) One of the principle goals of a consumer that chooses to file bankruptcy is to obtain a discharge under § 524. Despite its importance, however, there is much more legal discussion on the logistics and the process of automatic stay under § 362 that is in existence during the pendency...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
June 12, 2022
A new day is coming to high debt borrowers seeking to file Chapter 13 but confounded by the debt limits imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). Although debt limits have been increasing since the effective date of the Code in 1979, consumer debts have been increasing at a far more rapid rate. Starting in 2009, when the housing crisis first...
March 21, 2021
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) No matter how many hoops the client dutifully jumped through, without adequate inquiry and communication, the bankruptcy attorney was slammed for unbundling his services. The representation agreement at issue excluded representation in any adversary proceeding filed, as do most such agreements, I imagine. The client initialed every paragraph of the 19-paged representation agreement,...