Case docket
Penobscot Valley Hospital and Calais Regional Hospital v. Carranza (SBA) — Bankr. D. Me., Adv. Proc. Nos. 20-1005 and 20-1006
Penobscot Calais v. SBA PPP — 4 court filings in the archive, mostly from United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Maine, filed between April 30, 2020 and March 11, 2021. Among them: 1 response or reply.
Case facts
| Court | United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Maine (2 filings); United States District Court, District of Maine (filed as district court Document 1; Case 1:20-mc-00148-JDL) (1 filing) |
|---|---|
| Filings | 4 public filings |
| Filed | 2020-04-30 – 2021-03-11 |
| Document types | response or reply (1) |
| Original PDFs | 3 of 4 |
Case summary
Penobscot Valley Hospital and Calais Regional Hospital, each a chapter 11 debtor in possession in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine, brought consolidated adversary proceedings against Jovita Carranza in her capacity as administrator of the Small Business Administration over the SBA rule excluding debtors in bankruptcy from the Paycheck Protection Program. The court granted a temporary restraining order after an expedited hearing on April 30, 2020, tried the merits on May 27, 2020, and on June 3, 2020 issued proposed findings and conclusions stating that judgment should enter in favor of the SBA on all counts. On recommittal it issued additional proposed findings dated January 12, 2021, concluding that the bankruptcy exclusion was a permissible construction of the enabling legislation. No district court judgment is on this page.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiffs: Penobscot Valley Hospital (Chapter 11 No. 19-10034) and Calais Regional Hospital (Chapter 11 No. 19-10486), unaffiliated chapter 11 debtors in possession. Defendant: Jovita Carranza, in her capacity as administrator for the United States Small Business Administration |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine, Adv. Proc. Nos. 20-1005 and 20-1006, consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42, before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael A. Fagone; the proposed findings were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine as No. 1:20-mc-00148-JDL |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36) |
| Claims | The court records four counts in the complaint but two substantive claims: unlawful discrimination under 11 U.S.C. § 525 and a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, with the complaint seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, damages, declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus |
| Disposition or status | A temporary restraining order was granted over the SBA's objection after an expedited hearing on April 30, 2020 and twice extended with the SBA's consent, to May 28 and then to 5:30 p.m. on June 3, 2020. The bankruptcy court's proposed findings and conclusions dated June 3, 2020 state that judgment should enter in favor of the SBA and against the debtor on all counts. Additional proposed findings dated January 12, 2021 reached the same result on the APA claim. No district court judgment entering or rejecting those proposed findings is on this page |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the bankruptcy court conclude?
That judgment should enter in favor of the SBA and against the debtor on all counts of the complaint. Because the proceeding was related to, rather than arising in or under, a case under the Bankruptcy Code and the SBA had consented only as to the section 525 claim, the court was constrained to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) rather than a final judgment.
What did the additional proposed findings decide?
They addressed the Administrative Procedure Act claim on recommittal and state that the bankruptcy exclusion was a reasonable choice that cannot fairly be depicted as arbitrary or capricious, that the SBA engaged in reasoned decision making, and that because the exclusion is a permissible construction of the enabling legislation the court must defer to it. The filing notes that courts elsewhere have divided, some upholding the exclusion and some striking it down.
What did the hospitals ask for?
The reply memorandum of April 30, 2020 states that the motion sought a temporary restraining order permitting Calais Regional Hospital to submit a PPP application without being discriminated against on the basis of its status as a chapter 11 debtor, and to ensure the PPP did not run out of money before the application could be processed. The proposed findings record that Penobscot Valley Hospital's revised application for approximately $1.5 million was approved and funded but not disbursed, and that Calais Regional Hospital prepared a revised application for approximately $1.7 million but could not find a lender to process it.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
4 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
- Reply Brief in Support of Emergency TRO Motion — Calais Regional Hospital v. Carranza (Bankr. D. Me.)Response or reply · PDF
- Proposed Findings and Conclusions — Penobscot/Calais v. SBAPDF
- Additional Proposed Findings and Conclusions — Penobscot/Calais…
- Additional Proposed Findings and Conclusions (District Court…PDF
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.