Whether it's gone completely flat or simply reached its maturity, one thing is abundantly clear: The Minneapolis-St. Paul craft beer industry took a turn for the worst in this past year. Multiple, well-known establishments called it quits, including the Eastlake Craft Brewery and Clutch Brewing. Others, like Fair State Brewing Cooperative, recently filed for bankruptcy to reset their financial liabilities and attempt to survive in the new marketplace. Multiple others teeter on the precipice of financial disaster.
As most readers know, Subchapter V of Chapter 11 is the small business reorganization provisions enacted in the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) of 2019. SBRA made major changes to how small business cases are handled in an effort to streamline the process, reduce administrative expenses and result in more confirmed Chapter 11 plans. Prior to SBRA and even continuing after enactment of SBRA, small businesses could elect treatment as a small business debtor under Chapter 11.
Chart Comparing Exemptions
The specific bankruptcy and nonbankruptcy (Minnesota law and nonbankruptcy federal law) exemptions vary in scope and dollar amount. The following table summarizes and compares the two sets of exemptions. The statutory language of the exemption has been paraphrased in this chart. The actual statutory language as well as case law must be reviewed when analyzing a debtor’s claim for a particular exemption.
Revised August 2024
Picture this: You are wrapping up writing a brief, memorandum of law, motion or the like regarding a complex bankruptcy issue. It is a close call, and you are grasping for additional arguments to make to the judge. Now ask yourself: Have I discussed the relevant burden of proof? If not, now ask yourself: Whose burden is it anyway?
Conventional wisdom suggests there is no requirement that a debtor be “insolvent” to file a case under Chapter 11 or any other chapter of the Bankruptcy Code. No Code provision explicitly imposes such a requirement. Yet in 2023, several courts addressed the issue, and two courts directed the dismissal of massive Chapter 11 cases imposing what may fairly be characterized as an insolvency requirement.
Theintroduction of Subchapter V in 2020 created a new avenue for small business debtors to more efficiently and effectively obtain relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Eighth Circuit recently ruled that avoidance causes of action are property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code and thus may be sold by the trustee or debtor in possession. Pitman Farms v. ARKK Food Company, LLC, et al., No. 22-2011 (8th Cir. August 21, 2023). The ruling reinforces the notion that estate causes of action are assets that can be sold under § 363 of the Code, a practice which has been increasingly used in § 363 sales.
In 2020, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBA), which codified Subchapter V within Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The newly added subchapter is remarkably powerful, and with the new additions from Congress, creates a streamlined process for small businesses to reorganize. After passing the SBA, Congress subsequently increased the applicable debt limits for businesses eligible for Subchapter V, from approximately $2.7 million to $7.5 million, which qualified many more businesses for Subchapter V relief.
Bankruptcy filings, particularly Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization filings, are on a significant rise. Approximately 3,000 commercial Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases were filed in the first six months of 2023, an increase of more than 60 percent over the prior year. These cases include the most prominent bankruptcy filings—often in Delaware, Southern District of Texas or Southern District of New York.
Consensus remains elusive on the two major questions concerning the application of bankruptcy law in mass tort cases. In the past few months, at least five major decisions have addressed the significant issues of the availability of third-party releases and the two-step bankruptcies. Appeals have been filed or are threatened. In the meantime, the authors of a University of Chicago Law Review article argue that, as a matter of public policy, both should be available with court safeguards.