Subchapter V Bankruptcy for Middle Market Debtors
Despite its formal name—the Small Business Reorganization Act—the statute colloquially known as "Subchapter V" may offer a streamlined reorganization vehicle for some middle market companies.
September 17, 2021 at 02:40 PM
8 minute read
What is the "middle market"? Typically, this segment of the U.S. economy is defined as businesses with annual revenues roughly in the range of $10 million to $1 billion. Collectively, they are an economic powerhouse: According to the National Center for the Middle Market, there are about 200,000 such businesses in the United States, with annual combined revenues exceeding $10 trillion. Of course, these businesses—larger than the typical "mom and pop" shop, but most still privately owned or closely held—are not immune from financial distress, whether COVID-19-19-induced or otherwise, and at some point in the corporate life cycle may need to undergo financial restructurings, loan workouts, or bankruptcy proceedings. Unfortunately, the middle market has been particularly hard-hit by the rising costs of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in recent years, to the point that for some companies, it has paradoxically become too expensive to go bankrupt.
In response to broad criticism that Chapter 11 had become too expensive and complex for all but the largest companies, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), which went into effect in February 2020. The SBRA added "Subchapter V," 11 U.S.C. §§1181-95, to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Despite its formal name—the Small Business Reorganization Act—the statute colloquially known as "Subchapter V" may offer a streamlined reorganization vehicle for some middle market companies.
|Subchapter V Benefits
Subchapter V was intended to provide eligible debtors with a more efficient, less costly, and simpler path to a Chapter 11 restructuring. Among its key features, Subchapter V (1) eliminates the official committee of unsecured creditors; (2) eliminates a debtor's obligation to pay quarterly U.S. Trustee fees; (3) provides a reduced period (90 days) for the debtor (but no other party) to file a Chapter 11 plan; (4) permits a debtor to spread the payment of administrative expenses (including its attorneys' fees and that of the Subchapter V trustee) over the life of its plan—which can stretch up to five years following plan confirmation—as opposed to having all administrative expenses due at confirmation; and (5) relaxes the "absolute priority rule," which allows a debtor's equity holders to retain their ownership interests in the debtor without an infusion of new capital or the payment of all creditors in full. Subchapter V also permits a debtor to confirm a plan of reorganization without accepting votes, because the debtor can "cramdown" a plan on all creditors without the approval of an impaired, consenting class of creditors. See 11 U.S.C. §1191(b).
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Publication of Information Regarding Client Matters
- 2The State of Cost Recovery — Post COVID
- 3Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 4The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 5Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
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