Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
“[A] secured creditor [has no] affirmative obligation under the automatic stay to return a debtor’s [repossessed] collateral to the bankruptcy estate immediately upon notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on Oct. 28, 2019. In re Denby-Peterson, 2019 WL 5538570, 1 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2019). Affirming the lower courts, the Third Circuit joined “the minority of our sister courts — the Tenth and D.C. Circuits” with its holding. According to the court, it was “[g]uided by the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and turnover provisions, the legislative purpose and policy goals of the automatic stay, and the reasoning of the Supreme Court and our two sister circuits ….” Id. at 13. In sum, because “a secured creditor [need not] return the [repossessed] collateral to the debtor until the debtor obtains a [bankruptcy] court order … requiring the creditor to do so,” it does “not violate the automatic stay” of Bankruptcy Code (Code) §362(a)(3) (creditors stayed from “any act to obtain possession of property of the debtor … or to exercise control over property of the estate.”). Id. at 5-6. The court essentially allowed lenders with statutory defenses to a debtor’s turnover claim to retain possession pending a bankruptcy court order resolving the issue.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Landmines In Bankruptcy Appellate Practice, Part III
By Michael L. Cook
When courts have made important exceptions in the past year, they have either added a gloss on the Judicial Code, corrected lawyers’ errors, filled in statutory gaps, or clarified the relevant statutory language.
A Strategic Guide for Lenders to Navigate Anticipated Distressed Loan Fallout
By Jay Steinman and Karina Leiter
The steps outlined in this article offer a strategic guide for lenders, empowering them to navigate the complexities of loan workouts and enforcement actions with resilience and foresight.
Third Circuit: Bankruptcy Code Mandates Appointment of Examiner In Chapter 11 Cases
By Francis J. Lawall and Brenden S. Dahrouge
The Third Circuit recently held in 'In re FTX Trading' that the plain text of Section 1104(c)(2) mandates the appointment of an examiner under the specified conditions set forth. As a result, the FTX decision will carry significant implications for large and medium-sized bankruptcy cases.
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Ryan Spengler
The Central District of California court held that a bankruptcy court’s administration of cannabis-related state court claims against a debtor’s estate is not a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.