The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270.

The bankruptcy question upon which the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari is this:

The Bankruptcy Protector

In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act. This legislation created a new type of Chapter 11 reorganization under which certain businesses with total debts less than a certain threshold (currently $7.5 million) could reorganize. These provisions, known as Subchapter V eliminated certain requirements for confirmation of a reorganization plan and include other changes to make small business reorganization quicker and less expensive.

In a decision rendered on June 6, 2022, Justice Sotomayor authored the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the case Siegel v. Fitzgerald, holding that a statutory increase in United States Trustee’s fees violated the “uniformity” requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause set forth in Article I, § 7, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”1  

Congress and the President finally extend the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility:

• by “unanimous consent” in the Senate;
• by a vote of 392 – 21 in the House; and

A legislative history of the new law is at this link.

The new law is bi-partisan and uncontroversial. But there are some bells and whistles, as discussed below.

“SUNSET” – Again!

It seems like a small thing: Chapter 11 debtors in two states paying lower quarterly fees than Chapter 11 debtors in the other 48 states.

What’s the big deal?

Alabama and North Carolina throw a political hissy fit, three or four decades ago. They want their own Bankruptcy Administrator system (not the U.S. Trustee system established everywhere else). And they are rewarded. The reward includes lower quarterly fees.

Where’s the harm in lower quarterly fees? What follows is an attempt to:

“The Congress shall have Power To . . . establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

–U.S. Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 4).

An Old Losing Streak—Article III

On June 6, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, in which the Court held that the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1229 (the “2017 Act”) was unconstitutional.

As we’ve previously reported, on February 19, 2020, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act (“SBRA”) to, among other things, streamline the chapter 11 bankruptcy process for small businesses. Under the SBRA, a “small business” was one with less than $2,725,625.00 in debt. Few businesses, however, were eligible to take advantage of these new provisions because their debts exceeded the cap.

As discussed in prior posts and articles (here, here and

“No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

–Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution

Increasingly, states are expanding their laws on debtor/creditor relationships, such as receiverships and assignments for benefit of creditors.

Some of these expansions look suspiciously like a Bankruptcy Code Lite—e.g., adding “stay” provisions.

And that can be a constitutional problem, according to long-standing (and recent) opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

What follows is a brief summary of three such opinions.