Forgiveness for the Unforgiven: Small Business Chapter 11 Solution for Adverse PPP Loan Outcomes
Since the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) became law March 27, businesses who applied and obtained PPP loans, or considered applying for them, were given a roller coaster ride of uncertainty as to whether, and under what terms, the loans would be forgiven.
June 15, 2020 at 10:47 AM
5 minute read
Since the Payroll Protection Program (PPP) became law March 27, businesses who applied and obtained PPP loans, or considered applying for them, were given a roller coaster ride of uncertainty as to whether, and under what terms, the loans would be forgiven. First, PPP borrowers who had existing lines of credit with other lenders—not prohibited under PPP—were condemned by Congress and the Treasury Secretary and threatened with criminal investigation. Later, when it became apparent that the rigid requirements for loan forgiveness were unworkable for the businesses most in need, Congress passed legislation to loosen the requirements for PPP loan forgiveness. Still, the current political climate ensures that uncertainty over loan forgiveness will continue. For those borrowers who are denied meaningful loan forgiveness and must add short-term SBA debt to their balance sheets, there is an alternative to reduce the additional debt load: the Small Business Debtor Reorganization Act, Subchapter V to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Subchapter V became law last February.
|It Will Be Difficult for Most Small Businesses to Meet PPP Loan Forgiveness Requirements
Businesses with 500 or fewer employees will have trouble making the PPP work for them because of the high standard the law set for the full amount of the loan to be forgiven. Under prior PPP law, businesses had to use 75% of the loan in eight weeks for employee payroll at pre-pandemic staffing levels. The June 5 amendments to the PPP law reduced the payroll requirement to 60% and extended, by 16 weeks, the time to spend the loan. Still, these and other requirements of the PPP make it difficult for small businesses to obtain complete loan forgiveness. Borrowers get only part of their PPP loan forgiven if they operate at reduced staffing levels and do not rehire or replace workers who were furloughed during the shutdown. By the time a distressed business receives the funds, its payroll, in all likelihood, will have already been reduced to keep the business alive. The forgiveness aspect of the loan won't work for businesses operating on a limited basis or not at all, or for businesses whose payroll costs are relatively low compared to inventory and supply expenses. And those businesses who received PPP loans before recent change in the PPP law will continue to be required to pay back the loan within two years. For most companies, this will mean adding a more short-term debt to their balance sheets at a time they can least afford it.
|Help From the Small Business Debtor Reorganization Act
|Small businesses, including sole proprietors, with debt of as much as $7.5 million are eligible for reorganization under Subchapter V of Chapter 11 if the petition is filed before March 27, 2021. Subchapter V makes it easier to get court approval of a reorganization plan by eliminating the requirement that at least one class of creditors "buy into" the plan by voting to accept it. Now, the business owner only needs the bankruptcy judge to approve the reorganization plan. Subchapter V also dropped the requirement for business owners to contribute cash or valuable property to the reorganization if the plan proposes to pay creditors only a portion of their unsecured debt. Instead, the plan must provide for the business to pay its disposable income to creditors over a three to five-year period. After the owners of the business are paid reasonable compensation for their work, the profits of the business are paid to its creditors.
|How Subchapter V Can Ease the Burden of Unforgiven PPP Loans
If, at the end of its PPP journey, a borrower is told by SBA it will not qualify for a meaningful amount of PPP loan forgiveness, filing Subchapter V can be a way to "enhance" loan forgiveness. Since a PPP loan is unsecured debt, a court approved Subchapter V plan need only pay a portion of the loan to obtain a bankruptcy discharge for the debtor's business. While a business is in Subchapter V, a PPP loan lender will have little basis to block the debtor's use of the loan funds so long as the money is used to pay for payroll, employee benefits, interest on mortgage and other debt and utilities. And even if the SBA were to complain about its borrower's Chapter 11, it is doubtful the SBA would find a sympathetic ear in Bankruptcy Courts: The PPP is two months old and already, Bankruptcy judges in New Mexico and Texas have issued orders requiring the SBA to stop refusing to process PPP loan applications submitted by Chapter 11 businesses or slowing PPP loan approval.
Fewer businesses are applying for PPP loans because most business owners either realize the current rules for loan forgiveness do not fit their business or fear more election year changes to the PPP law will move the forgiveness "goal post" beyond the reach of most small businesses. Subchapter V provides an alternative for those who want to try to survive the current downturn with the help of government funding, but without adding substantial short-term SBA debt to the already difficult problems faced by businesses.
Thomas R. Lehman is a partner with Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami. He focuses on bankruptcy, insolvency, employment, insurance coverage and real estate disputes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250