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

Copy of Hildebrand-2016
September 18, 2022
Insurance proceeds generated due to a totaled car treated under the “hanging paragraph” of 1325(a) covers the entire claim; interest, however, is not recalculated even though it was a higher rate than the interest paid under the plan. (Hanan) In re Pagan, 638 B.R. 887 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. Jan. 24, 2022) Case Summary Bankruptcy judges have been overheard saying that...
February 23, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction This series has focused on the 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), became effective February 19, 2020. It appears in its entirety in Appendix B to this...
February 17, 2019
Offering time-saving alternatives to a telephone call, the IRS reminds taxpayers they can get fast answers to their refund questions by using the “Where’s My Refund?” tool available on IRS.gov and through the IRS2Go app. The IRS issues nine out of 10 refunds in less than 21 days, and the fastest way to get a refund is to use IRS...
May 12, 2024
Say it isn’t so!!!!! The bankruptcy community bids farewell to Judge Brian Lynch, a devoted jurist leaving a lasting impact on Chapter 13. Known for his advocacy and leadership, Judge Lynch's retirement marks the departure of a stalwart champion of bankruptcy law reform and education, leaving behind a legacy of compassion, humor, and dedication to improving the system.
September 20, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Chapter 13 debtor lacked “person aggrieved” standing to appeal objection to trustee’s final report. The bankruptcy court had overruled the debtor’s objection to the trustee’s final report, and debtor’s appeal was dismissed, with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel finding that debtor lacked “person aggrieved” standing to appeal. Debtor’s objection had not included amount of...
March 8, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Plan did not properly address 910 creditor’s liens. Finding that the plan did not satisfy one of the three options for addressing a secured claim under § 1325(a)(5), specifically failing to provide for the 910 creditor’s retention of lien, the Panel observed that in response to the creditor’s objection to confirmation, the debtors...
February 24, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) It was impermissible and contrary to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code for the bankruptcy clerk to enter an order which dismissed a Chapter 13 case based only upon the trustee’s certification that the debtor did not make a timely first payment. (Duncan). No...
August 11, 2019
By Selwyn D. Whitehead, Esq. Because inquiring minds need to know; below is a discussion of the Johnson Publishing Company, LLC’s Chapter 7 Liquidation Bankruptcy, Case No. 19-10236, which was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division in Chicago on April 9, 2019, and its week-long auction from July 22-24, 2019. Here's...
May 16, 2021
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Unpaid filing fee in prior case was unsecured claim. The Chapter 13 trustee moved for authority to pay unpaid filing fee from prior case, but Court denied that to the extent the motion sought payment ahead of unsecured creditors. The unpaid filing fee was nothing more than a general unsecured claim in the...
August 11, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.


These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: