Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com 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.
*May exclude premium content
By Louis F. Solimine, James J. Henderson and Andrew L. Turscak, Jr.
In a recent, unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final order that must be appealed within the time provided under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002.
By Rudolph J. Di Massa, Jr. and Geoffrey A. Heaton
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia recently denied creditors’ counsel’s motion for a fee enhancement under the “common fund doctrine,” finding it could not award the requested fees absent statutory authority.
By Lawrence J. Kotler
In the case of In re Solutions Liquidation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware adjudicated a motion to dismiss filed by the debtors’ former managers and officers in connection with the breach of fiduciary duty complaint filed against them by the trustee of the debtors’ liquidating trust.
By Andrew C. Kassner and Joseph N. Argentina Jr.
The provisions of the Bankruptcy Code sometimes conflict with other federal laws and regulations. The Sixth Circuit Court recently considered whether an energy company debtor could reject a power purchase agreement as an executory contract that had been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)