Court Opinion

ID: 9961008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 18:00:46.709711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:09.387961
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50237        Document: 89-1        Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/17/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit
                              ____________
                                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                No. 23-50237
                              ____________                                FILED
                                                                      April 17, 2024
In the Matter of GFS Industries, L.L.C.                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
                                                                         Debtor,

Avion Funding, L.L.C.,

                                                                    Appellant,

                                    versus

GFS Industries, L.L.C.,

                                                                       Appellee.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 22-05052
                 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge:
       In this appeal, we consider a 2019 addition to the Bankruptcy Code
known as “Subchapter V,” which seeks to streamline the Chapter 11
reorganization    process   for   certain    small    business   debtors.       See
11 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq. Subchapter V relieves small business debtors from the
absolute priority rule for repaying creditors, which was thought to unduly
complicate their reorganization. Compare id. § 1129(b)(2) with id. § 1191(c).
 Case: 23-50237          Document: 89-1         Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                      No. 23-50237

In exchange for that benefit, however, those debtors cannot discharge certain
“kinds” of debt listed in § 523(a) of the Code. See id. §§ 1192(2), 523(a). The
issue we address here is whether those discharge exceptions apply to both
corporate and individual Subchapter V debtors (as the Fourth Circuit has
ruled) or only to individual debtors (as some bankruptcy courts have ruled).
See generally Cantwell-Cleary Co. v. Cleary Packaging, LLC (In re Cleary
Packaging, LLC), 36 F.4th 509 (4th Cir. 2022). Although the question is
complicated by a certain textual awkwardness in the Bankruptcy Code, we
ultimately side with the Fourth Circuit and rule that, in Subchapter V
proceedings, both corporate and individual debtors are subject to the list of
§ 523(a) discharge exceptions. 1
        Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND.
                                           I.
        GFS Industries is a Texas limited liability corporation that provides
commercial cleaning services. Seeking financing to expand operations, GFS
entered into an agreement with Avion Funding on April 6, 2022. Avion
would give GFS $190,000 in exchange for $299,800 of GFS’s future
receivables. 2 GFS represented it had not filed, nor did it anticipate filing, any
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Nonetheless, on April 21, 2022, two weeks
after signing the agreement, GFS petitioned for voluntary Chapter 11
bankruptcy in the Western District of Texas. GFS elected to proceed under

        _____________________
        1
         To be sure, the issue is a close and interesting one—as shown by the fact that it
was recently the subject of a national bankruptcy moot court competition. See Paul R. Hage
& G. Ray Warner, 31st Annual Conrad B. Duberstein National Bankruptcy Moot Court
Competition, 32 Norton J. Bankr. L. & Prac. art. 1 (Feb. 2023).
        2
            Such an agreement is known as a “Merchant Cash Advance.”

                                            2
 Case: 23-50237           Document: 89-1          Page: 3       Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                       No. 23-50237

Subchapter V, which Congress enacted in 2019 as part of the Small Business
Reorganization Act (“SBRA”), Pub. L. No. 116–54, 133 Stat. 1079 (2019).
        On July 25, 2022, Avion filed an adversary complaint in GFS’s
bankruptcy. As relevant here, Avion claimed GFS obtained Avion’s
financing by misrepresenting whether it anticipated filing for bankruptcy.
Avion sought a declaration that GFS’s debt to Avion was therefore
nondischargeable. In response, GFS moved to dismiss Avion’s complaint,
arguing that the Bankruptcy Code section on which Avion relied,
11 U.S.C. § 523(a), applies only to individual debtors and that, as a result,
GFS’s debt was dischargeable.
        The bankruptcy court agreed with GFS. It reasoned that “in the
Subchapter V context, only individuals, not corporations, can be subject to
§ 523(a) dischargeability actions.” Avion Funding, LLC v. GFS Indus., LLC
(In re GFS Indus., LLC), 647 B.R. 337, 342 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2022). In doing
so, the court followed the reasoning of four bankruptcy courts. 3 It declined to
follow the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Cantwell-Cleary Co. v. Cleary
Packaging, LLC (In re Cleary Packaging, LLC), 36 F.4th 509, 517–18 (4th Cir.

        _____________________
        3
          See Jennings v. Lapeer Aviation, Inc. (In re Lapeer Aviation, Inc.), 2022 WL 1110072
(Bankr. E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2022) (ruling that corporate debtors proceeding under
Subchapter V are not subject to § 523(a) actions); Catt v. Rtech Fabrications, LLC (In re
Rtech Fabrications, LLC), 635 B.R. 559, 568 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2021) (same); Cantwell-Cleary
Co. v. Cleary Packaging, LLC (In re Cleary Packaging, LLC), 630 B.R. 466, 468 (Bankr. D.
Md. 2021), rev’d 36 F.4th 509 (4th Cir. 2022) (same); In re Satellite Rests. Inc. Crabcake
Factory USA, 626 B.R. 871, 873 (Bankr. D. Md. 2021) (same). In July 2023, a bankruptcy
appellate panel of the Ninth Circuit arrived at the same conclusion. See generally Lafferty v.
Off-Spec Sols., LLC (In re Off-Spec Sols., LLC), 651 B.R. 862 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2023). In
addition, some leading bankruptcy scholars agree with these authorities. See generally Paul
W. Bonapfel & Robert Schaaf, Do § 523(a) Exceptions to Discharge Apply to the Discharge of a
Corporation in a Subchapter V Case After “Cramdown” Confirmation Under § 1191(b)?, 32
Norton J. Bankr. L. & Prac. art. 1 (Dec. 2023); Richard P. Cook, Discharges in
Subchapter V, 41 Am. Bankr. Inst. J. 24 (2022).

                                              3
 Case: 23-50237       Document: 89-1         Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                  No. 23-50237

2022) [Cleary], which held that the Subchapter V discharge exceptions apply
to both individual and corporate debtors. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court
ruled GFS’s debt to Avion was dischargeable and dismissed Avion’s
complaint. Avion timely appealed to the district court. The bankruptcy court
subsequently granted Avion’s motion to certify a direct appeal to our court
under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2). Avion Funding, LLC v. GFS Indus., LLC (In re
GFS Indus., LLC), 2023 WL 1768414, at *4 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2023).
                                      II.
        “When directly reviewing an order of the bankruptcy court, we apply
the same standard of review that would have been used by the district court.”
Drive Fin. Servs., L.P. v. Jordan, 521 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2008). Dismissals
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim are reviewed de novo. See
Norsworthy v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.4th 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2023).
                                      III.
        GFS proceeds under Subchapter V, enacted in 2019 to streamline
Chapter 11 reorganizations for small business debtors whose debt does not
exceed $7.5 million. See 11 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq.; id. § 1182(1); see also In re
Free Speech Sys., LLC, 649 B.R. 729, 735 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2023)
(“Subchapter V only applies when a debtor elects to proceed under it.”
(citing 11 U.S.C. § 103(i))). If a debtor’s bankruptcy plan is confirmed as a
consensual plan under § 1191(a), the dischargeability of its debts is governed
by § 1141(d). See 11 U.S.C. § 1181(a) (only § 1141(d)(5) concerning individual
debtors is inapplicable to Subchapter V consensual plan discharge
provisions). By contrast, GFS’s plan was confirmed as a nonconsensual plan
under § 1191(b), so the dischargeability of its debts is governed by § 1192. See
id. § 1181(c) (“If a plan is confirmed under section 1191(b) of this title,
section 1141(d) of this title shall not apply, except as provided in section 1192
of this title.”).

                                       4
 Case: 23-50237         Document: 89-1          Page: 5      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                      No. 23-50237

        As § 1192 provides, after the debtor completes the required payments,
the bankruptcy court
        shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts provided in
        section 1141(d)(1)(A) 4 of this title, and all other debts allowed
        under section 503 of this title and provided for in the plan,
        except any debt--
                (1) on which the last payment is due after the first
                3 years of the plan, or such other time not to
                exceed 5 years fixed by the court; or
                (2) of the kind specified in section 523(a) of this title.
Id. § 1192 (emphasis added). The cross-referenced § 523(a) lists various
types of non-dischargeable debts—for instance, debts for certain “tax or
customs [] dut[ies],” for “domestic support obligation[s],” or for failing “to
pay fines or penalties imposed under Federal election law.” See
id. § 523(a)(1), (5), (14B). The category relevant here is a debt for money
obtained by a “materially false” written statement “respecting the
debtor’s . . . financial condition.” Id. § 523(a)(2)(B)(i)–(ii).
        The textual conundrum in this case arises from § 523(a)’s preamble:
“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of
this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt . . . .”
Id. § 523(a) (emphasis added). In ruling for GFS, the bankruptcy court
deemed this preamble “critical to the analysis.” Specifically, the court
reasoned that § 523(a)’s “limiting language” means that, in a Subchapter V
proceeding, the listed non-dischargeability exceptions apply only to an
“individual debtor.” But they do not apply to a limited liability company like
GFS—meaning its debt to Avion, even if procured by misrepresenting its

        _____________________
        4
         This subpart refers, as relevant here, to “any debt that arose before the date of
such [plan] confirmation.” 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A).

                                            5
Case: 23-50237         Document: 89-1        Page: 6     Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                    No. 23-50237

financial condition, could still be dischargeable. On appeal, Avion contests
the bankruptcy court’s understanding of the interplay between § 523(a) and
§ 1192(2). We consider each of its arguments in turn.
                                        A.
       Avion argues that placing controlling weight on the word “individual”
in § 523(a) disregards the plain language of § 1192(2). We agree.
       To begin with, § 1192 governs discharging debts of a “debtor,” plain
and simple. See 11 U.S.C. § 1192 (requiring court to “grant the debtor a
discharge” of all specified debts (emphasis added)). A Subchapter V
“debtor” means “a person engaged in commercial or business activities”
with debts not exceeding $7.5 million. Id. § 1182(1)(A). “‘[P]erson’ is in turn
defined to include both individuals and corporations, see id. § 101(41), and
‘corporation[s]’ include limited liability companies, id. § 101(9)(A).” Cleary,
36 F.4th at 514 (citations omitted). So, putting all this together, § 1192 applies
to both individual and corporate debtors. Id. at 514–15. It does not distinguish
one from the other.
       Next, § 1192 excepts from discharge “any debt . . . of the kind specified
in section 523(a).” 11 U.S.C. § 1192(2) (emphasis added). We must apply
this precise language as written. See Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A., 562
U.S. 61, 69 (2011) (“[I]nterpretation of the Bankruptcy Code starts . . . with
the language of the statute itself.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Section 523(a) enumerates 21 categories or “kinds” 5 of non-dischargeable
debts. See § 523(a)(1)–(20) (including (14), (14A), and (14B)). So, the most
       _____________________
       5
         See, e.g., Kind, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/kind [https://perma.cc/QBX6-ZB94] (last visited Mar. 19, 2024)
(“[A] group united by common traits or interests: CATEGORY.”); Kind, Cambridge
Dictionary (4th ed. 2013) (“[A] group with similar characteristics, or a particular
type.”).

                                         6
Case: 23-50237        Document: 89-1       Page: 7   Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                 No. 23-50237

natural reading of § 1192(2) is that it subjects both corporate and individual
Subchapter V debtors to the categories of debt discharge exceptions listed in
§ 523(a). See Cleary, 36 F.4th at 515 (“[T]he combination of the terms ‘debt’
and ‘of the kind’ indicates that Congress intended to reference only the list
of non-dischargeable debts found in § 523(a).”).
       Consider, moreover, what § 1192(2) does not say: “kind of debtor.”
Congress could have enacted those words in § 1192 but instead chose “kind
of debt.” That text cannot be read to incorporate a distinction between
“individual” and “corporate” debtors. Rather, as the Fourth Circuit
correctly reasoned, the reference to “kind[s]” of debt in § 1192 serves as “a
shorthand to avoid listing all 21 types of debts” in § 523(a), “which would
indeed have expanded the one-page section to add several additional pages to
the U.S. Code.” Cleary, 36 F.4th at 515.
       In addition, to the extent §§ 523(a) and 1192(2) clash, § 1192(2)
governs as the more specific provision. Section 1192 deals directly with
Subchapter V discharges, whereas § 523(a) cuts across various Bankruptcy
Code provisions. See § 523(a) (listing “section 727, 1141, 1192, 1228(a),
1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title”). As the Fourth Circuit observed, “to the
extent that one might find tension” between the two sections, “the more
specific provision should govern over the more general.” Cleary, 36 F.4th at
515; see also, e.g., RadLAX Gateway Hotel, L.L.C. v. Amalgamated Bank, 566
U.S. 639, 645 (2012) (observing “[i]t is a commonplace of statutory
construction that the specific governs the general” and applying the canon to
the Bankruptcy Code (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S.
374, 384 (1992))). The specific/general canon is especially applicable where
“Congress has enacted a comprehensive scheme and has deliberately
targeted specific problems with specific solutions.” RadLAX, 566 U.S. at 645
(citation omitted); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 185 (2012)

                                       7
Case: 23-50237        Document: 89-1        Page: 8    Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                  No. 23-50237

(“The specific provision does not negate the general one entirely, but only in
its application to the situation that the specific provision covers.”).
Subchapter V fits that bill: it legislates specific reorganization options for
small business debtors.
       GFS counters (echoing the bankruptcy court) that this interpretation
of § 1192(2) makes the word “individual” in § 523(a) superfluous. See
11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (“A discharge under section . . . 1192 . . . of this title does
not discharge an individual debtor . . .”) emphasis added)). This argument
has some force because, “[i]f possible, every word and every provision [of a
statute] is to be given effect,” and “none should be ignored.” Scalia &
Garner, supra, at 174. At the same time, though, the “preference for
avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute.” Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540
U.S. 526, 536 (2004); see also Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84,
94 (2001) (noting “[t]he canon requiring a court to give effect to each word
‘if possible’ is sometimes offset by the canon that permits a court to reject
words ‘as surplusage’ if ‘inadvertently inserted or if repugnant to the rest of
the statute’” (citation omitted)).
       We agree with amicus curiae United States that the anti-surplusage
canon does not win the day here. To begin with, the reference to § 1192 was
added to § 523(a) via a “conforming amendment.” See Br. of Amicus Curiae
United States at 21 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 116-171, at 9 (2019)); see also Pub.
L. No. 116–54, 133 Stat. 1079, 1085–86 (2019). That would be an awkward
way of modifying § 1192(2)’s straightforward “kind of debt” language. See
Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cnty. Emps. Ret. Fund, 583 U.S. 416, 431 (2018)
(“Congress does not make ‘radical—but entirely implicit—change[s]’
through ‘technical and conforming amendments.’” (quoting Dir. of Revenue
of Mo. v. CoBank ACB, 531 U.S. 316, 324 (2001))). In other words, it would
be no “minor tweak” to § 1192(2), id. at 430, to change “kind of debt” to
“kind of debtor.” It is unlikely Congress would have done such a thing

                                        8
Case: 23-50237        Document: 89-1       Page: 9    Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                  No. 23-50237

through a cross-reference in a “mere conforming amendment.” Ibid.
(cleaned up).
       This interpretation gains traction when we examine other statutory
cross-references in § 523(a)’s preamble. Some are themselves superfluous.
For example, § 523(a) refers to § 727 even though Chapter 7 discharges are
already available only to individual debtors. See 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1). So, the
term “individual” as applied to § 727 is entirely redundant. See id. § 727(b).
The same applies to § 523(a)’s reference to § 1328(b): Chapter 13 discharges
are also available only to individual debtors. See id. §§ 109(e), 1328(b).
       Other problems emerge when we consider § 523(a)’s cross-reference
to § 1141. Part of that section, § 1141(d)(6), provides that traditional Chapter
11 discharges will not discharge a corporate debtor from certain kinds of debts
in § 523(a). See id. § 1141(d)(6)(A) (providing “a debtor that is a
corporation” is not discharged from debts “of a kind specified in paragraph
(2)(A) or (2)(B) of section 523(a)”). But if we read “individual” in § 523(a)’s
preface to control all the cross-referenced statutes, that would erase the
corporate debtor discharge exceptions in § 1141(d)(6). See Cleary, 36 F.4th at
516 (observing that this interpretation “would . . . create difficulty in
reconciling § 523(a) with § 1141(d)(6)”). This is yet another reason not to
read the word “individual” in § 523(a) to implicitly modify § 1192(2).
                                      B.
       Avion’s argument gains greater force when we situate § 1192 in the
larger context of the Bankruptcy Code. See, e.g., In re Lively, 717 F.3d 406,
409 (5th Cir. 2013) (reading “the language of the statute taken in the context
of the Bankruptcy Code of which it is a part” (citing RadLAX, 132 S. Ct. at
2070–71)). Other Code provisions explicitly limit discharges to “individual”

                                       9
Case: 23-50237          Document: 89-1          Page: 10      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                      No. 23-50237

debtors. 6 Even traditional Chapter 11 proceedings distinguish discharges for
individual and corporate debtors. 7
        By contrast, § 1192 provides dischargeability simply for “the
debtor”—which, as noted, the Code defines as encompassing both individual
and corporate debtors. See also Cleary, 36 F.4th at 515–16 (distinguishing
§ 1192 from other provisions that “conscientiously defined and distinguished
the kinds of debtors covered”). We cannot add words to § 1192 that Congress
did not enact. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) (“[W]here
Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it
in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress
acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”
(quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972))).
        Avion also draws our attention to the Chapter 12 discharge provision,
covering family farmers or fishermen, which is virtually identical to § 1192.
See 11 U.S.C. § 1228(a). Chapter 12 allows “the debtor” a discharge of all
specified debts “except any debt . . . of a kind specified in section 523(a) of this
title.” Ibid. (emphasis added). As the Fourth Circuit recognized, “courts
construing the scope of § 1228(a) have concluded that [its] discharge
exceptions apply to both individual debtors and corporate debtors.” Cleary, 36
F.4th at 516 (citing Sw. Ga. Farm Credit, Aca v. Breezy Ridge Farms, Inc. (In
re Breezy Ridge Farms, Inc.), 2009 WL 1514671, at *1–2 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. May

        _____________________
        6
         See 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1) (in Chapter 7 proceedings, “[t]he court shall grant the
debtor a discharge, unless . . . the debtor is not an individual”); id. § 109(e) (“Only an
individual with regular income . . . may be a debtor under chapter 13 of this title.”).
        7
          Id. § 1141(d)(2) (denying § 523 dischargeability for a “debtor who is an
individual”); id. § 1141(d)(5) (limiting dischargeability when “the debtor is an
individual”); id. § 1141(d)(6) (same for “a debtor that is a corporation”).

                                           10
Case: 23-50237           Document: 89-1           Page: 11      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                       No. 23-50237

29, 2009); New Venture P’ship v. JRB Consol., Inc. (In re JRB Consol., Inc.),
188 B.R. 373, 374 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1995)).
        In particular, the JRB Consolidated bankruptcy court reasoned that
“[t]he wording in § 1228(a)(2) describing ‘debts of the kind’ specified in
§ 523(a) does not naturally lend itself to incorporate the meaning ‘for debtors
of the kind’ referenced in § 523(a).” 188 B.R. at 374 (emphasis added). 8 We
see no reason why this sound analysis of § 1228(a)’s text would not apply
equally to the substantively identical phrase in § 1192(2). Accord Cleary, 36
F.4th at 517 (“[I]dentical words and phrases within the same statute should
normally be given the same meaning.” (quoting Hall v. United States, 566
U.S. 506, 519 (2012))). Moreover, § 1228(a) is also referenced in § 523(a)’s
preamble along with § 1192. See § 523(a) (referencing “[a] discharge under
section . . . 1192 [and] 1228(a)”). So, if we adopted the restrictive reading of
§ 1192 urged by GFS, it would undermine bankruptcy courts’ interpretation
of § 1228(a). Accord Cleary, 36 F.4th at 516. We decline to do so. 9
                                            C.
        Finally, GFS contends that our interpretation of § 1192 will frustrate
Congress’s purposes in enacting Subchapter V. We disagree.

        _____________________
        8
          See also Breezy Ridge Farms, 2009 WL 1514671, at *2 (explaining that,
“[a]lthough 523(a) applies only to individuals, Congress has used it as shorthand to define
the scope of a Chapter 12 discharge for corporations as well as individuals”).
        9
          Like the bankruptcy court, GFS would distinguish JRB Consolidated on the
ground that Chapter 11’s discharge provisions are “narrower” than Chapter 12’s. That
may have been an accurate statement in 1995, when JRB Consolidated was decided. But in
2005 Congress broadened Chapter 11’s discharge exception provisions such that corporate
debtors are now subject to dischargeability complaints under § 1141(d)(6). See Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, S. 256, 109th Cong. § 708
(2005); Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, 126–27 (2005) (adding 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(6)).
Accordingly, like the Fourth Circuit, we fail to see any relevant difference in scope between
the Chapter 11 and 12 discharge provisions. See Cleary, 36 F.4th at 516–17.

                                             11
Case: 23-50237          Document: 89-1           Page: 12      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                       No. 23-50237

        First of all, GFS’s argument relies on vague assertions in the SBRA’s
legislative history. But the history GFS cites does not speak to, or even
mention, the individual-vs-corporate debtor issue before us. GFS merely
quotes a committee report’s statement that Subchapter V sought to
“streamline the bankruptcy process” for “small business debtors.” 10 Even if
one were inclined to consult legislative history, such generalities are no help
in resolving the concrete interpretive issue we address today. See Food Mktg.
Inst. v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2364 (2019) (noting the Supreme
Court “has repeatedly refused to alter” statute’s “plain terms on the
strength only of arguments from legislative history”); Hubbard v. United
States, 514 U.S. 695, 708 (1995) (“Courts should not rely on inconclusive
statutory history as a basis for refusing to give effect to the plain language of
an Act of Congress[.]”).
        Second,      and    more      importantly,      GFS      misunderstands         the
compromises Congress made in Subchapter V. In a traditional Chapter 11
case, a nonconsensual plan is subject to the “absolute priority rule,” under
which classes of unsecured creditors are fully paid before any junior class. See
In re Lively, 717 F.3d 406, 410 (5th Cir. 2013); see also In re Pac. Lumber Co.,
584 F.3d 229, 244 (5th Cir. 2009); 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(1), (2)(B)(ii). Because
“the Code places equity holders at the bottom of the priority list,” Czyzewski
v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. 451, 457 (2017), however, the absolute
priority rule “could preclude reorganizations in which continuing

        _____________________
        10
            Amicus curiae National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (“NABT”)
similarly relies on one vague assertion from the legislative history that § 1192(2) pertains
only to debt “that is otherwise nondischargeable.” See H.R. Rep. No. 116-171, at 8 (2019).
At the same time, NABT concedes that in 72 pages of legislative history, discussion of
§ 523(a) “appears only once.” Accordingly, this one isolated reference does not outweigh
the evidence from the statutory texts enacted by Congress. See Azar v. Allina Health Servs.,
139 S. Ct. 1804, 1814 (2019) (explaining that “legislative history is not the law”).

                                            12
Case: 23-50237          Document: 89-1          Page: 13      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                      No. 23-50237

management of the bankruptcy estate by a business’s owners would be
essential to a successful reorganization because such owners’ retention of
estate property would violate the priority rule.” Cleary, 36 F.4th at 514.
        In the SBRA, Congress sought to help small business debtors by
abrogating the absolute priority rule, allowing equity owners to retain their
interests even though junior creditors are not paid in full. See
11 U.S.C. § 1191(c). The plan needs only ensure that the debtor’s disposable
income be paid to creditors for three to five years. Cleary, 36 F.4th at 514
(citing id. § 1191(c)(2)(A) and (3)). Congress did not stop there, though. To
counterbalance that benefit to debtors, Congress excepted from discharge
“any debt . . . of the kind specified in section 523(a).” Id. § 1192(2). In other
words, like most legislation, Subchapter V is a compromise: affording small
business debtors unique benefits while subjecting them to § 523(a)’s
dischargeability exceptions. See Cleary, 36 F.4th at 517 (“Given the
elimination of the absolute priority rule, Congress understandably applied
limitations on the discharge of debts to provide an additional layer of fairness
and equity to creditors to balance against the altered order of priority that
favors the debtor.”).
        To agree with GFS’s argument here would be to rewrite that
compromise—at least insofar as small business corporate debtors are
concerned—in the face of § 1192(2)’s plain language and context. We have
no authority to do so, especially based on statements in legislative history that
Congress never enacted in the statute. 11

        _____________________
        11
            Amicus NABT worries that subjecting corporate debtors to § 523(a)’s
exceptions will frustrate Subchapter V’s efficiency goals by, for instance, incentivizing
creditors to promiscuously file § 523(a) complaints against debtors. But these arguments
are grounded in policy considerations, not statutory text or structure. And, in any event,

                                           13
Case: 23-50237       Document: 89-1         Page: 14   Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                  No. 23-50237

                                      IV.
       In sum, we agree with the Fourth Circuit that 11 U.S.C. § 1192(2)
subjects both corporate and individual Subchapter V debtors to the
categories of debt discharge exceptions listed in § 523(a). Accordingly, the
judgment of the bankruptcy court is REVERSED and REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

       _____________________
the Bankruptcy Code already provides remedies for abusive complaints. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 9011(c) (sanctions).

                                       14