This Comment examines Judge Papalia’s decision to suspend proceedings in the Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy case In re Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. Controversially, this decision effectively postponed Modell’s commercial rent obligations during the COVID-19 economic shutdown. The Comment argues that the decision relied on an inappropriate use of section 305(a)(1) and section 105(a) to partially suspend proceedings. However, Judge Papalia achieved the right outcome for the case. This Comment argues that Judge Papalia could have achieved the same pragmatic result using section 363(b)(1) in conjunction with section 105(a). Finally, the alternate, legally sound, route to this outcome, points to the deeper resilience of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Courts in times of crisis. The Comment contends that in future pandemics and other similarly extraordinary crises judges can rely on the Code’s existing flexibility, which affords sufficient discretionary tools to reach unprecedented but practical solutions.