Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email Gro[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.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Bankruptcy Risk and Fraud In Cryptocurrency
By J. Eric Wise
Among the risks of cryptocurrency exchanges are bankruptcy risk and fraud, including: the inalienability of account claims, holding an unsecured claim versus an entitlement to the return of coin, and bankruptcy preference risk.
Bankruptcy Court Says Bankruptcy Case Is ‘Filed’ When Uploaded, Not Stamped
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Drew S. McGehrin
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York summed up the importance of the determination as to when a bankruptcy case is actually filed of record, thereby triggering the imposition of the automatic stay and found that the “upload” time of a bankruptcy filing — and not the time physically “stamped” on a bankruptcy petition — determines when a case is commenced. In doing so, the Bankruptcy Court offered direction and guidelines that debtors and creditors will be well advised to observe in future cases.
Fourth Circuit Ruling Underscores Judicial Divide On Use of ‘Texas Two-Step’
By Avalon Zoppo
A sharply divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling shielding a nondebtor in bankruptcy proceedings from asbestos lawsuits underscores the wider and growing divide among judges across the country on the bounds of Chapter 11 protection and corporations’ use of the “Texas two-step” to address mass tort litigation.
By Francis J. Lawall and Brenden S. Dahrouge
Chapter 11 cases involving mass tort and complex personal injury claims often require the resolution of novel legal issues that stretch the bounds of existing precedent. As these cases evolve, they can also impact claims against other debtors unrelated to the case at hand through court-approved injunctions, releases or settlements.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
