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.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions
By Michael L. Cook
Recent appellate decisions reflect a distaste for appeals from bankruptcy court sanction orders. A split Fourth Circuit even refused to hear such an appeal. Other courts tend to limit sanctions or, alternatively, accept a bankruptcy judge’s findings under a stringent “abuse of discretion” standard.
Supreme Court’s Rejection of Purdue Pharma Settlement Redefines Releases In Chapter 11
By Angelo Castaldi
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its most anticipated bankruptcy decision in recent memory. In a 5-4 decision entered June 27, the Supreme Court struck down the nonconsensual third-party releases. Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code authorized the nonconsensual release or discharge of claims of opioid victims against the Sacklers, who were not debtors themselves.
Ninth Circuit: Debt In Asset Case Is Nondischargeable If Debtor Fails to Properly Schedule the Debt
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Geoffrey A. Heaton
In a recent published decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a previously unresolved question in that circuit: whether a debtor’s failure to properly schedule a debt in an “asset case” renders the debt nondischargeable.
Is the Rule Preventing Bankruptcy Judges from Appointing Special Masters Outdated?
By Mark B. Conlan and Noel L. Hillman
Rule 9031 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure prevents all bankruptcy judges, and, if broadly interpreted, any federal judge hearing bankruptcy cases and proceedings, from appointing special masters. The rule has not been amended since its adoption in 1983. It is outdated and should be repealed or amended to accord with the reality of today’s complex Chapter 11 cases.