ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ SANCHEZ and VILMA LUZ DIAZ DEYNES

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
ALFREDO 	RODRIGUEZ SANCHEZ 	CASE NO. 09-03681 BKT
VILMA LUZ DIAZ DEYNES 	Chapter 11
XXX-XX-8031
XXX-XX-8278
FILED & ENTERED ON 05/03/2010
Debtor(s)
OPINION AND ORDER
This proceeding is before the Court upon Debtors’ Motion for Reconsideration of the March
3, 2010 Order [Dkt. No. 154] and the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) & (b)(4)(J) (“UST-MTD”) [Dkt. No. 150]. For the reasons set forth below,
Debtor’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED and the United States Trustee’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.
I- 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Alfredo Rodriguez Sanchez and Vilma Luz Diaz Deynes jointly filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition on May 6, 2009 subject to the small business provisions of the Bankruptcy Code
(“Debtors”) [Dkt. No. 1]. This Court held the first status conference on August 7, 2009, whereat a
deadline to file the disclosure statement and plan was set for November 2, 2009 and a confirmation
hearing set pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1129(e), within 45 days of November 2, 2009 [Dkt. No. 53]. In
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 9

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the meantime, a contested matter arose between Debtors and creditor Home Owners Association of
Lakeside Villas (“Lakeside Villas”) and a Pre-Trial Conference was held on October 16, 2009. At
that hearing, this Court reiterated that this is a small business case and that if Debtors considered
prudent that the deadline to file the disclosure statement and plan be extended, then the appropriate
motion had to be filed [Dkt. No. 96]. Accordingly, Debtors filed a motion requesting the extension
of time on October 30, 2009 [Dkt. No. 106]. In this request, Debtors acknowledged that section
1121(e)(2) mandates the filing of the disclosure statement and plan no later than 300 days from the
date of the order for relief. Debtors requested that the deadline to file the disclosure statement and
plan be set for March 2, 2010, the 300th day from the Order for Relief. In addition, Debtors requested
that the exclusivity period also be extended to the same date.
On November 14, 2009, the Court denied the Debtors’ request to extend the exclusivity
period inasmuch as it failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the Court would more
likely than not confirm a plan within a reasonable period of time. 11 U.S.C. § 1121 (e)(3)(A) [Dkt.
No. 109]. Two days later, Debtors moved for reconsideration of the order, this time addressing the
requirements of section 1121(e)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code [Dkt. No. 110]. The Court noted that
the argument to extend the exclusivity period was submitted untimely, 194 days after the Order for
Relief was entered, thereby failing to comply with 11 U.S.C. §1121 (e)(3)(B) & (C).
Shortly thereafter, an Opposition to the Reconsideration was filed by creditor Lakeside Villas
requesting that the Court deny the motion in light of the fact that Debtors’ original motion lacked the
evidentiary burden established by the Code [Dkt. No. 119]. The Court scheduled and held a hearing
on this matter concluding that Debtors could file the disclosure statement and plan on or before
March 2, 2010, but, in regards to the exclusivity period, the same could not be extended. At the
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 9

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing, the Court once again scheduled the confirmation hearing within 45 days of March 2, 2010
[Dkt. No. 136].
On March 3, 2010, 301 days after the Order for Relief, Debtors failed to comply with the
statutory deadline or extend it in accordance with the law. The Court entered the following order:
Because of Debtors' failure to comply with the Small Business Chapter 11
requirements under 11 USC § 1121 (e)(2), no relief is available under Chapter 11.
Therefore, Debtor and any other party in interest are hereby afforded fourteen (14)
days to state their positions as to whether the case should be dismissed or converted
to Chapter 7. The United States Trustee shall state its position within fourteen (14)
days.
Two days later, Debtors filed an unsigned Disclosure Statement attaching as an exhibit a
document titled Plan of Reorganization dated March 5, 2010 [Dkt. No. 141-1].
On March 24, 2010, the UST filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)
and (b)(4)(J), therein requesting dismissal of the case for Debtors’ failure to comply with the filing
of the Plan within the time fixed by the Bankruptcy Code and stating that dismissal rather than
conversion is in the best interest of the creditors in this case [Dkt. No. 150].
The Court scheduled a hearing on the UST-MTD for April 16, 2010. On April 14, 2010,
Debtors filed two motions. The first motion is titled Motion Requesting Extension of Time (30 days)
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1129(e) and 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3)(A), (B) & (C) [Dkt. No. 153] . The
second motion is a multi-matter motion titled:
Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Entered at Docket 140, the Allowance of
the Continuation of the Confirmation of the Chapter 11 Plan filed at Docket #141
and Response to the United States Trustee’s Motion to dismiss Pursuant to 11 USC §
1121(b)(1) & (b)(4)(J)
Debtors allege that the Court has discretion to interpret the Bankruptcy Code’s small
business provisions in a permissive manner and that the statute does not state that the filing of the
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 9

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
disclosure statement and plan after the 300-day term divests the Court of the authority to give relief
to the debtor by allowing the continuation of the case. In sum, Debtors requested that the Court
allow the case to continue under Chapter 11, deny the UST-MTD and reschedule the confirmation
hearing.
At the hearing held on this matter, the parties argued their respective positions and submitted
the controversy for resolution.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§1334 and 157(a) and the General Order of referral of Title 11 Proceedings to the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico dated July 19, 1984 (Torruella, C.J.). This is a core
proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §157(b).
II- 	APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION:
Section 1121 (e) of the Bankruptcy Code establishes the time constraints which apply to
small business Chapter 11 cases. In small business cases—
(1) 	Only the debtor may file a plan until after 180 days after the date of the order
for relief, unless that period is—
(A) extended as provided by this subsection, after notice and a hearing; or
(B) the court, for cause, orders otherwise;
(2) 	the plan and a disclosure statement (if any shall be filed not later than 300
days after the date of the order for relief; and
(3) the time periods specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), and the time fixed in section
1129(e) within which the plan shall be confirmed, may be extended only if-
(A) the debtor, after providing notice to parties (including the United States
Trustee), demonstrates by a preponderance of evidence that it is more likely than
not that the court will confirm a plan within in a reasonable amount of time;
(B) a new deadline is imposed at the time the extension is granted; and
(C) the order extending the time is signed before the existing deadline has
expired. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3).
This section establishes mechanisms for small business debtors to comply with the intent of
Congress to provide an expedited, supervised procedure in which the rights of all parties in interest
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 9

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are protected throughout the reorganization process. Congress intended that bankruptcy courts be
more active in “judicial oversight of small business bankruptcy cases, which often are the least likely
to reorganize successfully.” H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE
PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005, H. Rep. No. 109-31, pt. 1, at 92
(2005), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2005, p. 88 (the “Report”), cited by In re Darby General
Contracting, 410 BR 136. (August 2009).
In fact, small business cases’ “judicial oversight” is not necessarily a burden reserved solely
for the Court’s advisements; Congress imposed duties on the UST’s office to review and monitor
diligently the debtor's activities to determine as promptly as possible whether the debtor will be
unable to confirm a plan; and promptly apply to the court for relief in any case in which the United
States Trustee finds material grounds for dismissal or conversion of the case. 28 USC § 586(A).
The expedited nature of the confirmation process pursuant to 11 USC § 1129(e) is a clear
example of Congress’ attempt to keep small business cases on a short leash. For example, in this
District, small business debtors find their disclosure statements conditionally approved upon filing,
the Court immediately authorizes debtor to send out ballots and a confirmation hearing is promptly
scheduled within the 45 day deadline under 11 USC § 1129(e). Also, by statute, small business
debtors are the only party afforded 180-days to file a plan, a larger exclusivity period than their
counterparts in a regular Chapter 11 proceeding.
These benefits are not free of other requirements; the plan and disclosure statement “shall be
filed not later than 300 days after the date of the order for relief.” 11 USC § 1121(e)(2). Prior to the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”)1, the filing
1 Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005)
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 9

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
deadline was set at 160 days and the request to extend was subject to it being made within the period
under a lesser burden of proof standard. Now, debtors are also required to request the extension
within the statutory 300 day term, provide notice to all parties in interest and demonstrate by a
preponderance of evidence that it is more likely than not that the court will confirm a plan within in
a reasonable amount of time. Once debtors comply, the Court is called upon to establish the new
deadline at the time the extension is granted and enter the order extending the time before the
existing deadline has expired. 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3).
The 300-day term and the mechanisms to extend it are clear evidence that Congress intended
to actively supervise small business proceedings by placing different burdens on debtors, the UST
and court itself to manage these cases in an expedited manner.
There are no provisions in BAPCPA that define the consequences if neither the debtor nor
any other party meets these filing deadlines. However, it has been established that “cause” would
exist for conversion or dismissal of the case under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(J) on the ground of failure
to file or confirm a plan within any time fixed statute or by the court. In re Western Steel & Metals,
Inc., 200 B.R. 873 (1996). If no party files a plan within the specified or extended time, then no relief is
available to the debtor in Chapter 11. Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1121.07[4] (Alan N. Resnick &
Henry J. Sommers eds., 16 th ed.)
In the captioned case, the small business Debtors failed to file their plan or extend the 300
day term in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(3). Therefore, upon expiration of the term, the
Court entered the above mentioned order on March 3, 2010. Debtors’ arguments on reconsideration
of this order are three-fold. First, Debtors argue that 11 USC § 1121(a) provides for debtor to file a
plan “at any time in a voluntary case” and that the 300-day term is related to the exclusivity period
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 9

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on filing the plan. We agree with Debtors that section 1121(a) provides for a regular Chapter 11
debtor to file the plan at any time. However, a small business debtor shall abide by the terms of 11
USC § 1121(e). The 300 day term is not the exclusivity period, it is an imperative term to file a plan,
and non-compliance creates a “drop-dead” effect that ultimately warps debtor’s reorganizational
efforts.
Second, Debtors argue that the term “shall” may be construed as merely permissive or
directory (as equivalent to “may”). We disagree. The Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term
“shall” as one with a mandatory sense that drafters typically intend and that courts typically uphold.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004). Here, the statutory term "shall" is a command, imperative
and consonant with Congress’ legislative intent. Debtors’ contention is without merit.
Debtors third and final argument is that the Court has discretion to interpret 11 USC §
1121(e)(2) in light of the recently decided First Circuit Court of Appeals case of In re Acosta-
Rivera, 557 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009). In the Acosta case, the First Circuit pointed out that 11 U.S.C. §
521(a)(1)(B), provides that the debtor "'shall . . . file'" the required disclosures "unless the court
orders otherwise." The court found that because the Bankruptcy Court had the flexibility to waive
non-disclosure before the passage of BAPCPA and considering that BAPCPA did not expressly
curtail that power, the Bankruptcy Court can use its discretion to excuse detailed disclosure and
determine when such information becomes "irrelevant or extraneous." The Court of Appeals noted
that a grant of judicial power to "order otherwise" predated BAPCPA, and when Congress updated
section 521, it left that language intact. BAPCPA allows courts to do the sifting between information
that is required and information that is not without rigid adherence to the 45-day deadline. In re
Acosta, supra.
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 9

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The case at hand is clearly distinguishable from the First Circuit’s Acosta decision inasmuch
as the statute in controversy does not provide for the court to “order otherwise.” As opposed to 11
U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B), here the Court lacks discretion in its interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 1121(e)(2).
Congress provided for small business debtors to file their plan within the 300 day “drop
dead” term or to extend said term. The inclusion of the term “shall” is considered mandatory and
imperative, hence inconsistent with the idea of discretion. This Court finds that there is no judicial
discretion to interpret the statute any other way. Debtors’ failure to comply with the 300 day “drop
dead” term affords them no relief under Chapter 11. Debtors’ motion for reconsideration lacks any
statutory authority or credible case law in its support, therefore, it is hereby DENIED.
DISMISSAL REQUEST UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) and (b)(4)(J)
The UST filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) and (b)(4)(J), therein
requesting dismissal of the case for Debtors’ failure to comply with the filing of a plan within the
time fixed by the Bankruptcy Code and stated that dismissal rather than conversion is in the best
interest of the creditors in this case [Dkt. No. 150].
Section 1112(b)(1) of the bankruptcy code states that
“…on request of a party in interest, and after notice and a hearing, absent unusual
circumstances specifically identified by the court that establish that the requested
conversion or dismissal is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate, the
court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a
case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate,
if the movant establishes cause.”
Under said section, dismissal is mandatory upon a showing of cause. Section 1112 does not
define the term ''cause,'' rather, the section simply enumerates examples of cause, any one of which
may be sufficient to justify the conversion or dismissal of the case. Section 1112 (b)(4)(J) establishes
cause as failure to file a disclosure statement, or to file or confirm a plan, within the time fixed by
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 9

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this title or by order of the court.
In this case, the debtor did not file a plan within the statutorily set time period under section
1121(e)(2); Debtors’ failure constitutes “cause” under section 1112(b) & (b)(4)(J). The court
incorporates herein by reference the arguments made by the UST as to why dismissal of the case is
in the best interest of creditors rather than conversion. Accordingly, and absent unusual
circumstances that would establish that dismissal is not in the best interest of creditors or the estate,
the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) & (b)(4)(J) [Dkt.
No. 150] is hereby GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, this 03 day of May, 2010.
Brian K. Tester
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
CC: 	All creditors
Case:09-03681-BKT11 Doc#:164 Filed:05/03/10 Entered:05/03/10 17:43:43 Desc: Main
Document Page 9 of 9