The sun has set. Yes it has.

The $7,500,000 eligibility limit for Subchapter V expired yesterday (March 28, 2022), without action by Congress to extend it.

Actually, the Subchapter V sun was set to set on March 27—but that’s a Sunday. So let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say it expired on Monday, instead.

Either way, the heightened debt limit is gone.

Hopefully, Congress can pass the heightened limit anew, after its expiration. Then, perhaps, we can be in a no-harm, no-foul mode, with no ill-effects to anyone. But that remains to be seen.

Despite recent criticisms of venue selection and cries to limit or curtail various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York demonstrates that the bankruptcy courts may continue to broadly interpret the scope of their jurisdictional reach and the powers and authorities granted to them under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re JPA No. 111 Co., Ltd., No. 21-12075 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.

A key bankruptcy-related response to the pandemic has ended as the increased debt limits under subchapter V of chapter 11, passed by Congress in the CARES Act, have expired. In an effort to provide bankruptcy relief and access to subchapter V of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to a greater number of small businesses, Congress raised the debt limit for subchapter V eligibility from the original $2,725,625 million to $7.5 million via the CARES Act, passed in March of 2020.

It begins with an awkward mouthful. Outside a bankruptcy brief, is “unimpairment” even a word? (No, per Merriam-Webster.) Inside Chapter 11, it’s much more: a trend.

Want to refinance your bonds cheaply? Are you an otherwise sound and solvent business, forced into bankruptcy by a massive fire (PG&E), persistent low commodity pricing (Ultra Petroleum), or a pandemic (Hertz, whose airport rental business was shuttered in 2020 by COVID-19)?

Or would you just prefer to boost your stock value by lowering your coupon?

Francis Tregear QC was instructed to act as an expert in English law for the successful party (“JPA”) in a dispute heard by Hon. David S Jones a judge in the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

The case turned on English law relating to mortgages and equitable principles which are applicable to mortgages. The relevant English law fell to be applied in the context of aircraft finance for the purchase of two Airbus 350-941 aircraft.

Here’s a vindication for the Small Business Administration’s discrimination against bankruptcy debtors:

On March 23, 2022, Massachusetts-based Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP and certain affiliates, which operate a 674 MW natural gas-fired combined-cycle electric power plant in Salem, Massachusetts, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 22-10239).

How much precedential value does an 1885 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court deserve on a bankruptcy discharge issue?

That’s a central question in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bartenwerfer v. Buckly, Case No. 21-908 (“Distributed for Conference of 4/29/2022”).

Facts of the Case [Fn. 1]

A Petition for certiorari is before the U.S. Supreme Court in Speech & Language Center, LLC, and Chryssoula Marinos-Arsenis v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey

Petition’s Question

The Question presented in the Petition is this:

The concept of a single purpose entity is often present in the purchase and financing of commercial real estate. A lender may require its borrower to be a single purpose entity in order to lessen the lender’s bankruptcy risk in the event that the borrower or any of its parent entities file for bankruptcy, and also to ensure that no other businesses of the borrower adversely affect the property that is the subject of the loan.