Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A secured lender’s “mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy–repossession] does not violate” the automatic stay provision [§362(a)(3)] of the Bankruptcy Code (Code), held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585, 589 (Jan. 14, 2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved “a split” in the Circuits. Id. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., In re Weber, 719 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2013) (by retaining possession of collateral, lender “was ‘exercising control’ over” debtor’s property). But the Third, D.C., and Tenth Circuits, had reached the right result in other cases. In re Denby-Peterson, 941 F.3d 115 (3d Cir. 2019) (secured creditor has no “affirmative obligation under the automatic stay to return a debtor’s [repossessed] collateral” to estate “immediately upon notice” of debtor’s bankruptcy filing); In re Cowen, 849 F.3d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 2017) (only “affirmative acts” to take “possession of, or to exercise control over” debtor’s property “violate” automatic stay); United States v. Inslaw, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467, 1474 C.D.C. Cir. 1991) (“Nowhere in [Code §362(a)] is there a hint that it creates an affirmative duty ….”). As shown below, the Supreme Court effectively held that the Code’s automatic stay provides no automatic turnover of a lender’s collateral. The Code’s turnover provision (§542) is also not automatic.
*May exclude premium content
By Daniel Coyle
Chapter 15 specifically allows foreign representatives to conduct discovery in the U.S., but be wary of other entities that seek to distract and/or delay the Foreign Representative from the asset search.
By Michael L. Cook
Judicial hair-splitting, when applying state law to federal bankruptcy cases, creates only uncertainty.
By Francis J. Lawall and Marcy J. McLaughlin Smith
The common interest doctrine can be a powerful tool when used to block discovery of relevant and sometimes critical evidence. However, a determination of when it can be invoked requires a highly fact-intensive analysis.
By Earl M. Forte
Chapter 11 work can be episodic and uneven, and while litigation skills are essential, it is also quite specialized. So, given these qualities, how does a bankruptcy litigator go about moving from one law firm to another, and what are the pitfalls?