雖然封城舉措日漸放松,但受幾個月來收入大幅下降的影響,在未來一段時間內,像餐館、自助洗衣店和花店這樣的小企業(yè)的日子仍然會很艱難。現在因為有PPP小企業(yè)貸款計劃的支持,這些公司在短期內還有名義上的償付能力,但等到該計劃停止之后,勢必會出現一波小企業(yè)倒閉潮。
不過有專家表示,考慮破產的小企業(yè)主還將面臨另一個災難性的陷阱:在美國的許多州,破產法可以強制要求小企業(yè)主用自己的房屋來抵償企業(yè)債務,此舉或將讓破產的小企業(yè)主無力東山再起。
造成這一問題的根源是兩個相互關聯的因素。首先,許多小企業(yè)都是非法人獨資企業(yè),這就意味著從法律上來說,這些企業(yè)的債務屬于所有者的個人債務。即便是股份制的小企業(yè),很多此類公司在獲取貸款、財務租賃或其它融資時也是靠所有者的個人擔保,也就是說,小企業(yè)主本人要為這些債務負責。
理論上說,“宅地豁免”能夠防止債權人收走債務人的主要居所,但由于許多州的破產法規(guī)定的“宅地豁免”金額上限非常低,這種所謂保護往往有名無實。
美國國家消費者破產律師協會的負責人艾克?舒爾曼說:“美國許多州(如果不是大多數州的話)的宅地豁免金額都遠遠低于房屋的價值。幾十年來都沒有怎么變化?!?
在2019年發(fā)布的一份報告中,美國國家消費者法律中心(NCLC)對各州的破產宅地保護情況進行了分級:包括阿拉巴馬和肯塔基州在內,共有22個州僅獲得了“F”評級。其中,阿拉巴馬州每人的豁免金額僅為15,500美元,肯塔基州每人的豁免金額更是低到了5,000美元。加州的評級同樣為“F”。雖然對已婚夫婦的宅地豁免額度提升到了100,000美元,但相較于加州平均578,267美元的房屋價值(根據Zillow的數據)而言,這也只是很小的一部分,在舊金山等房價更貴的地區(qū)就更是如此了。
破產法的施行受多種州法及聯邦法的約束。而以美國中部各州為代表的許多州則為宅地提供了強大的豁免保護。佛羅里達、愛荷華、堪薩斯和得克薩斯等州都為屋主提供了無上限宅地豁免保護,這樣無論宅地的價值有多高,屋主在申請破產時都無需擔心自己會流落街頭。
某些州的屋主可以選擇使用聯邦宅地豁免保護。但聯邦宅地豁免的金額也同樣少的可憐,為每人僅提供約25,000美元的豁免額度,具體金額視通貨膨脹情況而定。
舒爾曼說,如果破產申請者所持有房屋的價值超過宅地豁免金額,破產受托人通常會變賣掉申請者的房屋,將宅地豁免的那部分金額以現金形式交給屋主,然后將剩余資金償還給債權人。舒爾曼表示,這種做法破壞了破產法的基本原則。
“設立破產法的目的是為了讓人們不至于因為破產而一敗涂地?!笔鏍柭f,“應該給他們留下些資產,好讓他們能夠有機會重新開始。”
但事實卻并非如此,在宅地豁免額度較低的州,那些申請破產的小企業(yè)主不僅會失去自己的房屋,還會失去他們多年積攢的財富?!八麄兊漠吷e蓄可能都在房子上了?!笔鏍柭f。
美國國家消費者法律中心專門處理抵押、破產案件的律師約翰?勞認為,這很可能會讓一些原本需要進行破產重組的企業(yè)主放棄這一選擇,并因此延長負債時間,無法恢復自己的業(yè)務,也不能重新創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機會。
造成這一問題的原因部分在于管理者的惰性和對破產保護的輕忽。約翰?勞表示,有些州尚未依照聯邦規(guī)定根據通脹來調整豁免額度,這就讓宅地豁免政策的作用一年不如一年。
另一方面,舒爾曼說,解決這一問題也受到了來自銀行與討債行業(yè)的阻力。2016年,舒爾曼曾經參與推動加利福尼亞州擴充宅地豁免的工作,他們的努力遭到了代表上述兩個行業(yè)利益的游說團體的極力阻撓,最終以失敗告終。
約翰?勞期望新冠相關破產案例的增加能夠推動州及聯邦宅地豁免政策的改革進程。他表示,在大衰退后,由于房價大幅下跌,屋主沒有什么好保護的了,所以相關工作并未取得太多進展?!斑@次因為房產價值并未受到影響,所以可能會有不同的結果。”
從更廣泛的角度來說,舒爾曼認為人們對破產的態(tài)度或將發(fā)生變化,而這可能會推動更多改革。
他說:“人們常常覺得破產這件事不會發(fā)生在自己身邊。但如果看到許多人本身并沒有做錯什么,只是因為碰上了疫情,生意做不下去,就弄了個流落街頭的下場,那么人們可能會開始關注這一問題?!?
作者:David Z. Morris
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
雖然封城舉措日漸放松,但受幾個月來收入大幅下降的影響,在未來一段時間內,像餐館、自助洗衣店和花店這樣的小企業(yè)的日子仍然會很艱難?,F在因為有PPP小企業(yè)貸款計劃的支持,這些公司在短期內還有名義上的償付能力,但等到該計劃停止之后,勢必會出現一波小企業(yè)倒閉潮。
不過有專家表示,考慮破產的小企業(yè)主還將面臨另一個災難性的陷阱:在美國的許多州,破產法可以強制要求小企業(yè)主用自己的房屋來抵償企業(yè)債務,此舉或將讓破產的小企業(yè)主無力東山再起。
造成這一問題的根源是兩個相互關聯的因素。首先,許多小企業(yè)都是非法人獨資企業(yè),這就意味著從法律上來說,這些企業(yè)的債務屬于所有者的個人債務。即便是股份制的小企業(yè),很多此類公司在獲取貸款、財務租賃或其它融資時也是靠所有者的個人擔保,也就是說,小企業(yè)主本人要為這些債務負責。
理論上說,“宅地豁免”能夠防止債權人收走債務人的主要居所,但由于許多州的破產法規(guī)定的“宅地豁免”金額上限非常低,這種所謂保護往往有名無實。
美國國家消費者破產律師協會的負責人艾克?舒爾曼說:“美國許多州(如果不是大多數州的話)的宅地豁免金額都遠遠低于房屋的價值。幾十年來都沒有怎么變化?!?
在2019年發(fā)布的一份報告中,美國國家消費者法律中心(NCLC)對各州的破產宅地保護情況進行了分級:包括阿拉巴馬和肯塔基州在內,共有22個州僅獲得了“F”評級。其中,阿拉巴馬州每人的豁免金額僅為15,500美元,肯塔基州每人的豁免金額更是低到了5,000美元。加州的評級同樣為“F”。雖然對已婚夫婦的宅地豁免額度提升到了100,000美元,但相較于加州平均578,267美元的房屋價值(根據Zillow的數據)而言,這也只是很小的一部分,在舊金山等房價更貴的地區(qū)就更是如此了。
破產法的施行受多種州法及聯邦法的約束。而以美國中部各州為代表的許多州則為宅地提供了強大的豁免保護。佛羅里達、愛荷華、堪薩斯和得克薩斯等州都為屋主提供了無上限宅地豁免保護,這樣無論宅地的價值有多高,屋主在申請破產時都無需擔心自己會流落街頭。
某些州的屋主可以選擇使用聯邦宅地豁免保護。但聯邦宅地豁免的金額也同樣少的可憐,為每人僅提供約25,000美元的豁免額度,具體金額視通貨膨脹情況而定。
舒爾曼說,如果破產申請者所持有房屋的價值超過宅地豁免金額,破產受托人通常會變賣掉申請者的房屋,將宅地豁免的那部分金額以現金形式交給屋主,然后將剩余資金償還給債權人。舒爾曼表示,這種做法破壞了破產法的基本原則。
“設立破產法的目的是為了讓人們不至于因為破產而一敗涂地?!笔鏍柭f,“應該給他們留下些資產,好讓他們能夠有機會重新開始?!?
但事實卻并非如此,在宅地豁免額度較低的州,那些申請破產的小企業(yè)主不僅會失去自己的房屋,還會失去他們多年積攢的財富?!八麄兊漠吷e蓄可能都在房子上了?!笔鏍柭f。
美國國家消費者法律中心專門處理抵押、破產案件的律師約翰?勞認為,這很可能會讓一些原本需要進行破產重組的企業(yè)主放棄這一選擇,并因此延長負債時間,無法恢復自己的業(yè)務,也不能重新創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機會。
造成這一問題的原因部分在于管理者的惰性和對破產保護的輕忽。約翰?勞表示,有些州尚未依照聯邦規(guī)定根據通脹來調整豁免額度,這就讓宅地豁免政策的作用一年不如一年。
另一方面,舒爾曼說,解決這一問題也受到了來自銀行與討債行業(yè)的阻力。2016年,舒爾曼曾經參與推動加利福尼亞州擴充宅地豁免的工作,他們的努力遭到了代表上述兩個行業(yè)利益的游說團體的極力阻撓,最終以失敗告終。
約翰?勞期望新冠相關破產案例的增加能夠推動州及聯邦宅地豁免政策的改革進程。他表示,在大衰退后,由于房價大幅下跌,屋主沒有什么好保護的了,所以相關工作并未取得太多進展?!斑@次因為房產價值并未受到影響,所以可能會有不同的結果。”
從更廣泛的角度來說,舒爾曼認為人們對破產的態(tài)度或將發(fā)生變化,而這可能會推動更多改革。
他說:“人們常常覺得破產這件事不會發(fā)生在自己身邊。但如果看到許多人本身并沒有做錯什么,只是因為碰上了疫情,生意做不下去,就弄了個流落街頭的下場,那么人們可能會開始關注這一問題。”
作者:David Z. Morris
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
Though coronavirus lockdowns are beginning to ease, small businesses such as restaurants, laundromats, and florists will continue struggling with the devastating fallout from months of, at best, seriously curtailed revenue. While the PPP small-business loan program has kept some of those businesses nominally solvent in the short term, a wave of small-business bankruptcies is imminent once such support runs out.
But experts say many small business owners who consider bankruptcy will discover a devastating trap. The bankruptcy code in many states could force small-business owners to give up their homes to resolve business debts, potentially robbing them of the solid footing needed to rebuild.
The problem arises from two intersecting factors. First, many small businesses are unincorporated sole proprietorships, meaning the businesses’ debts aren’t legally separate from the owners’ personal finances. Even small businesses that are incorporated often rely on owners’ personal guarantees for loans, leases, or other financing, leaving them personally on the hook.
Compounding that reality is the fact that many states have very low caps on the so-called homestead exemption allowed by their bankruptcy codes. In theory, the exemption prevents a primary residence from being handed over to creditors. But it’s no longer working as intended.
“In many states, if not most, the amount of the homestead exemption has lagged far behind the cost of owning a home,” says Ike Shulman, head of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. “Over decades, it’s not even close.”
In a 2019 report, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) graded states’ bankruptcy homestead protections: 22 states earned an “F” grade, including Alabama, with an exemption of just $15,500 for an individual; and Kentucky, with an exemption of just $500 for an individual. California also earned an “F”: Though its homestead exemption tops out at $100,000 for married couples, that’s a small fraction of the statewide average home value of $578,267 (according to data from Zillow), and even less relative protection for homeowners in expensive markets such as San Francisco.
Bankruptcy codes run according to a complex mix of state and federal rules, and many states, particularly in middle America, do have strong homestead exemptions. Florida, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas are among those with unlimited homestead exemptions, enabling bankruptcy filers to protect their home regardless of its value.
In some states, homeowners can choose to use the federal homestead exemption instead of the state exemption. But the federal exemption, too, is meager—around $25,000 for an individual, variable according to inflation.
When bankruptcy filers have equity in their home above homestead exemption limits, Shulman says it is common for bankruptcy trustees to sell the home, give homeowners cash for the exempt amount, then use the rest to pay creditors. That, Shulman says, undermines the basic point of the bankruptcy code.
“It’s so people don’t just leave bankruptcy wearing a barrel,” says Shulman. “They should be able to get a fresh start with something.”
Instead, small-business owners who file for bankruptcy in states with low exemptions could lose both the roof over their head, and the financial security they thought they had been building. “That house is their life savings,” says Shulman.
According to John Rao, an attorney specializing in mortgage and bankruptcy issues for the NCLC, that makes it “very likely” that at least some business owners who need bankruptcy restructuring will not seek it. That will leave them with long-term personal liabilities, and could prevent them from rebuilding their businesses and bringing back the jobs they created.
The problem is partly a result of inertia and neglect. Some states, Rao says, have not adopted federal rules that keep the exemption in line with inflation, leaving its real value to wither over the years.
But in other cases, Shulman says, the problem has been actively prolonged by the banking and debt-collection industry. Shulman was part of a 2016 effort to expand California’s homestead exemption, which he says was actively opposed by lobbyists from those industries, and ultimately defeated.
Rao expects a ramp-up in efforts to reform state and federal homestead exemptions as coronavirus-related bankruptcies accelerate. Such efforts weren’t significant after the Great Recession, he says, because the crash in housing prices left many homeowners with little equity to protect. “This crisis is potentially much different, because home values haven’t dropped.”
More generally, Shulman thinks attitudes about bankruptcy are poised to change, potentially spurring more reform.
“People aren’t thinking of bankruptcy as something that people they know might need,” he says. “Coronavirus might bring that into focus, if people end up losing their homes because their businesses failed through no fault of their own.”