On Sunday, October 11, 2026, Mirra-Access Holdings, LLC and 27 affiliates filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the Tampa Division of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lead petition checks the health care business box under section 101(27A), lists a principal place of business in Spring Hill, in Hernando County, and places both assets and liabilities in the $100 million to $500 million range.

Source: Dkt. 1 (petition); Dkt. 4 (motion) ¶¶ 3, 4, 11; Dkt. 6 (joint administration order).

The debtors describe themselves as one of the largest outpatient health care providers in 11 counties across Central and South Florida, and the largest provider network in Hernando, Citrus, and Indian River Counties. They report more than 200 medical centers, approximately 60,000 managed care patients and 3,500 accountable care patients, and approximately 1,000 patients seen every day. The core business is primary and chronic care with a geriatric specialty, but the enterprise also runs oncology imaging, acts as a third-party administrator, operates a medical claims processing platform, and manages health care contracts with insurers.

The first-day docket is short for an operation of that size. Through October 13, its substantive filings are the petition, an expedited joint administration motion (granted October 13), the court's standard order authorizing the debtor-in-possession to operate, and the emergency motion to suspend. The rest of the docket is a certificate of necessity, a notice of deficient filing, BSP's appearance and pro hac vice motions, and hearing notices. No wage, cash management, critical vendor, or cash collateral motion has been filed.

The debtors' first substantive request was to put the cases on hold.

The Emergency Joint Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Suspending Proceedings in Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105 and 305 and (II) Granting Related Relief was filed at docket number 4 on October 12. It is a joint pleading. The debtors signed it through Stichter, Riedel, Blain & Postler, P.A., and BSP Agency, LLC, as administrative agent and collateral agent for certain lenders and joint lead bookrunner, signed it through Trenam Kemker as Florida counsel and Proskauer Rose LLP. A certificate of necessity filed the same day (Dkt. 5) asked for a hearing on or before Wednesday, October 14, and states that the debtors have reached an agreement with their senior secured lender to try to resolve the issues that caused the filings, preserve the status quo, and avoid irreparable harm to the business.

The relief is simple to describe. All proceedings in all 28 cases would be suspended for 45 days from entry of the order. Every deadline under the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules would be tolled, and when the period ends, the clock would restart as if the petition date were the day after the suspension. The automatic stay would remain in full force throughout.

Source: Dkt. 4 and proposed order attached as Exhibit A; Dkt. 5.

The standstill reaches past the estates. Both parties agree to refrain from hostile action against any related non-debtor party, a term the motion does not define. The only parent entity the motion names is Mirra-Auro Holdings, LLC, which it describes as the debtors' ultimate parent.

The motion's case for suspension rests on one creditor relationship. According to the motion, the filings were precipitated by the maturity of BSP's $400 million loan facility. Everything else the debtors say about the business points in the other direction: they describe themselves as profitable, with substantial liquidity, and expect to generate substantial EBITDA for calendar 2026.

The problem is confined to the BSP debt

In the 60 days before the petition date, the debtors paid more than $40 million to BSP to reduce the outstanding balance, and they have been negotiating with third parties for cash infusions that, in the motion's words, have not yet materialized. If the BSP debt can be restructured amicably, the debtors state that they would have no further need for Chapter 11. The cases could then be dismissed, with other debts handled in the normal course, or a consensual plan could be confirmed quickly at much lower cost than a traditional case.

Administrative expense would otherwise go to fighting

The statement of relief requested makes the cost argument directly: the legal fees and costs that would normally accrue every day in a case of this size can instead be put toward negotiating a resolution of roughly $400 million of debt. The motion returns to the point in paragraph 19, contrasting the significant costs of full case administration with the lower cost of negotiations focused only on the BSP claims.

The parties believe 45 days is enough

After preliminary post-filing discussions, the parties say they are hopeful they can restructure or refinance the BSP claims within 45 days through two-party negotiations, while the automatic stay holds other creditors in place. The motion says both sides are prepared to begin immediately.

Patients and other constituencies

The emergency framing leans on the patient base. The statement of relief cites approximately 1,000 patients seen every day, and paragraph 9 lists employees, patients, landlords, vendors, creditors, and equity holders as beneficiaries of an amicable restructuring. Paragraph 13 singles out the debtors' patients as the most important constituency.

The option to resume

Suspension preserves the cases. If talks fail, administration restarts at the end of the period, and the motion presents early good-faith negotiations as a benefit the estates would carry into a resumed case.

The BSP debt dates to 2021. That year HCA sold its interest in HCA-Access Healthcare Holdings, LLC to Mirra-Auro Holdings, LLC, the debtors' ultimate parent, through Mirra-Access Holdings, at a company valuation of $700 million. The debtors borrowed $350 million from BSP to fund the buyout, and additional BSP credit lines brought total debt to approximately $400 million by the petition date.

The debtors stayed current with BSP until late 2024. According to the motion, the proximate cause of the payment deferral was the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' restructuring of its reimbursement formulae through the Risk Adjustment Model version 28, commonly called V28. The motion says the change forced the debtors to defer payments to BSP, and that they have not been current on contractual interest since late 2024.

The motion says the business regained profitability over the following two years, but not in time to pay off or refinance the BSP debt before it matured.

Source: Mirra-Access Holdings, LLC, No. 26-09229 docket; Dkt. 12.

Section 305(a)(1) authorizes the court, after notice and a hearing, to dismiss a case or suspend all proceedings in it at any time if the interests of creditors and the debtor would be better served. The motion pairs that authority with section 105(a) and with the court's inherent power to manage its own docket, citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), for the proposition that the power to stay proceedings is incidental to that inherent power. It then argues that the totality of the circumstances shows a 45-day suspension would serve creditors, the debtors, and the people and businesses in daily contact with the debtors.

Section 305 usually appears in contested settings: involuntary petitions, two-party disputes better resolved in another forum, and cases running alongside a foreign proceeding. A debtor and its principal secured creditor invoking it together the day after the petitions are filed is a different use of the statute, and the motion offers no case law on that combination beyond Landis.

Two features of section 305 bear on Wednesday's hearing. The notice and hearing requirement explains the compressed schedule: the court set the matter on roughly two days' notice and directed debtors' counsel to serve the hearing notice immediately; counsel filed the notice and an amended certificate of service on October 13 (Dkt. 12, 13). Section 305(c) also limits review. An order suspending a case, or a decision not to suspend, cannot be reviewed by the court of appeals under sections 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of title 28, or by the Supreme Court. Whatever the bankruptcy court decides, appellate review stops at the district court.

The closest precedents come from the spring of 2020. Within weeks of the first COVID-19 shutdown orders, Chapter 11 debtors with closed stores and restaurants asked bankruptcy courts to freeze their cases while operations were dark. Of the 2020 retail and restaurant dockets reviewed for this report, only Modell's did so under section 305. Two others reached a similar result through different motions, and the second of those cited the first two as its models.

Formal section 305 suspensions

A Research Suite search for docket entries seeking to suspend Chapter 11 proceedings under section 305 returns seven cases, Mirra-Access among them. Three of the others show the mechanism in operation with enough docket detail to compare.

Source: Research Suite docket search, October 14, 2026.

COVID-era substitutes that did not invoke section 305

CraftWorks and Pier 1 pursued the same objective, a pause long enough to wait out the shutdowns, without asking the court to suspend their cases outright. CraftWorks sought procedural limits on what creditors could bring before the court. Pier 1 sought a budget that stopped non-critical payments and an order pushing payment and lift-stay motions to a later date.

Source: Research Suite docket search, October 14, 2026. Searches of the Research Suite dockets for Stage Stores, Inc. (No. 20-32564), Start Man Furniture, LLC (f/k/a Art Van Furniture, LLC) (No. 20-10553), Forever 21, Inc. (No. 19-12122), and Century 21 Department Stores (No. 20-12097) returned no comparable suspension filings.

The CraftWorks, Modell's, and Pier 1 motions were filed within 11 days of one another in March 2020, and they show the trade-offs a court weighs. Modell's took the broadest route, suspending the cases entirely, and drew repeated landlord objections as it sought extensions. Pier 1's narrower order left the case running but deferred specific payments, and it drew a similar wave of landlord objections and adequate protection requests. CraftWorks arrived with its creditors' committee already on board.

Every one of those cases, and every formal section 305 case in the table above, sought relief once the case was well underway: Modell's at docket 115, CraftWorks at 174, Pier 1 at 438, Engy at 79, and SureFunding at 104, after contested motions to dismiss. Mirra-Access asks for suspension before its schedules, statements, or creditor list exist, and with the one creditor whose claim drives the case on the same side of the motion.

The COVID cases also had a different cause. Their debtors could not operate. Mirra-Access describes a profitable business seeing approximately 1,000 patients a day, asking for time to renegotiate a single loan.

The motion is seven pages, plus a three-page proposed order. Several issues that other parties in interest, or the court on its own, may raise do not appear in it.

Source: Dkt. 7; Dkt. 1 at 3, 6; Dkt. 4; Dkt. 13.

The ombudsman question is the most concrete. Section 333 runs on its own 30-day clock, and the proposed order's tolling language appears broad enough to reach it. If the issue is raised, the court would be asked to decide whether a statutory deadline aimed at patient protection can be paused by an order whose stated justification is, in large part, patient protection.

The motion sketches two exits. If the debtors and BSP reach a deal, the debtors say the cases could be dismissed or a consensual plan confirmed quickly. If they do not, the debtors say they will file a joint plan of reorganization and disclosure statement regardless of BSP's position and move as fast as possible on a standalone restructuring, a strategic sale of interests in the debtors, or a refinancing of the existing debt.

Source: Dkt. 4 ¶¶ 7, 12.

As described in paragraph 12, the plan would pay allowed BSP claims in full, pay other secured and unsecured creditors in full in cash or over time, continue patient care, protect provider and staff jobs, and assume leases and executory contracts. No plan has been filed, and those terms are the debtors' stated intention. The motion includes no projections showing how the business would fund full payment of a matured $400 million facility alongside all other claims, and the debtors' own pleading acknowledges that the in-court route would be more expensive and slower.

The clerk's petition entry set February 8, 2027 as the deadline for a plan and disclosure statement. Under the proposed order, that date would be recomputed from the end of the Suspension Period.

The 28 cases were initially spread across three judges' dockets, as the case suffixes in the joint administration motion (CED, LER, and CPM) show. The October 13 joint administration order consolidated administration under the lead case, 8:26-bk-09229-CED. BSP's legal team moved quickly: a notice of appearance and three pro hac vice motions for Proskauer attorneys were on file by the day after the motion.

Source: Mirra-Access Holdings, LLC, No. 26-09229 docket and case record, through October 13, 2026.

The preliminary hearing is set for 3:30 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, October 14, in Courtroom 9A of the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse in Tampa (Dkt. 12). If the court enters the order that day, the Suspension Period would run through approximately November 28, 2026, and every case deadline would restart from the day after.

Source: Dkt. 12; dates after October 14 are calculated from the proposed order, not set by the court.

The first signal will be the U.S. Trustee's position, which the motion leaves unstated. Next is whether the court grants the suspension as drafted or conditions it on schedules and a creditor list, a section 333 determination, broader notice, or an interim period shorter than 45 days. If the order is entered, the docket should stay quiet except for status reports the parties choose to file. The proposed order itself anticipates the ways the period can end: an order extending the suspension, a motion to dismiss following a deal with BSP, or a restart of the cases with all deadlines running from the day after the period expires.