Subsection V—A Missed Opportunity to Fix Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
"Bankruptcy practitioners have long recognized that traditional Chapter 11 reorganizations are too complicated, too lengthy and too expensive for any but the largest businesses," writes Michael Napoli of Akerman.
August 30, 2024 at 11:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Introduced in 2019, Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Section 1181 et seq.) has been an invaluable tool for lawyers advising financially troubled small businesses. It provides a streamlined, cost-effective process for reorganization. Where it applies, Subchapter V has been a great success. It has been very popular in Texas, as well. But, much of that success was due to a temporary change to the law that allowed more companies to qualify for Subchapter V treatment. That change has now expired, taking with it the only viable avenue for many businesses to reorganize.
Bankruptcy practitioners have long recognized that traditional Chapter 11 reorganizations are too complicated, too lengthy and too expensive for any but the largest businesses. Small, generally family-owned, businesses were simply priced out of the process. To remedy this, Subchapter V made some key changes to the Bankruptcy Code to make the process more efficient in smaller cases.
- Created the Subchapter V trustee: Unlike a normal bankruptcy trustee who takes over the assets or operates the debtor's business, a Subchapter V trustee assists the debtor in navigating the bankruptcy process. A Subchapter V trustee advises the debtor and helps to negotiate the plan of reorganization. He or she often acts as an informal mediator between the debtor and its creditors.
- No "absolute priority" rule: Typically in bankruptcy, assets are distributed in a strict hierarchy—secured claims, administrative claims, unsecured claims, and then equity. As a result, the owner may be more likely to lose the business. In Subchapter V, the owner generally retains ownership of the business.
- Streamlined the plan of reorganization process:
- The debtor must file a plan of reorganization within 90 days.
- While it must disclose its financial condition, the debtor is not required to file a formal disclosure statement. A disclosure statement is a complicated document (similar to a securities offering) that is distributed to the creditors before they vote on a plan of reorganization. The statement must be approved by the court in advance and is often the subject of extensive negotiation and litigation. By eliminating the disclosure statement, Subchapter V not only gets rid of an expensive document but also some collateral litigation.
- Allows non-consensual plans: Typically in bankruptcy at least one "impaired" class must vote in favor of the plan. An impaired class is one whose rights are modified by the plan—typically, by receiving less than the full amount of their claims. In contrast, Subchapter V allows a plan to be confirmed over the creditors' objections so long as the plan provides that the debtor will use all of its disposable income for a period of at least three years to make payments under the plan and provides some means of enforcement.
- If the plan is consensual (all impaired classes vote in favor), then the debtor receives an immediate discharge. If not, the debtor's discharge is delayed until the debtor makes all payments required by the plan for a period of at least three years.
Eligibility for Subchapter V is limited. The debtor, which can be an individual or an entity, must be engaged in business or commercial activity and at least half of its debts must be from that activity. Public companies and their affiliates are ineligible as are entities that primarily hold a single real estate asset. The biggest limitation, however, is the amount of debt owed.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllTopping Kirkland, Weil Won the Most Valuable Major Bankruptcy Retentions of 2024
How New Jersey’s Pragmatic Bankruptcy Approach Sets It Apart Post-'Purdue Pharma'
7 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
- 1Court Rejects San Francisco's Challenge to Robotaxi Licenses
- 2'Be Prepared and Practice': Paul Hastings' Michelle Reed Breaks Down Firm's First SEC Cybersecurity Incident Disclosure Report
- 3Lina Khan Gives Up the Gavel After Contentious 4 Years as FTC Chair
- 4Allstate Is Using Cell Phone Data to Raise Prices, Attorney General Claims
- 5Epiq Announces AI Discovery Assistant, Initially Developed by Laer AI, With Help From Sullivan & Cromwell
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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