Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Repossessing Secured Lender to Hold Collateral Pending Bankruptcy Stay
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.
Relevance
The Circuit split here had generated a raft of scholarly debate. See, e.g., Ralph Brubaker, Turnover, Adequate Protection, and the Automatic Stay (Part I): Origins and Evolution of the Turnover Power, 33 Bkrtcy. L. Ltr. No. 8 (Aug. 2013); Ralph Brubaker, Turnover, Adequate Protection, and the Automatic Stay (Part II): Who Is "Exercising Control" Over What, 33 Bkrtcy. L. Ltr. No. 9 (Sept. 2013); Eugene R. Wedoff, The Automatic Stay Under §362(a)(3)—One More Time, 38 Bkrtcy. L. Ltr. No. 7 (July 2018); Ralph Brubaker, Turnover, Adequate Protection, and the Automatic Stay: A Reply to Judge Wedoff, 38 Bkrtcy. L. Ltr. No. 11 (Nov. 2018). The overarching issue is whether the automatic stay in Code §362(a)(3) is a self‑contained and self‑executing injunctive turnover order.
Facts
The four debtors in Fulton repeatedly violated the City of Chicago's traffic laws. When the debtors failed to pay the resulting fines, the City impounded their vehicles, giving the City a possessory lien on the vehicles securing its claim for the delinquent fines. Each of the debtors responded by filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions. In each case, the bankruptcy court held that the automatic stay affirmatively required the City to return the debtors' vehicles without the need for any turnover proceedings. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, after consolidating the four appeals by the City. It reasoned that, by retaining possession of the vehicles lawfully impounded before bankruptcy, the City was engaging in an "act … to exercise control" over estate property, in violation of the stay (§362(a)(3)). The court affirmed orders directing turnover of the debtors' cars and imposed monetary sanctions.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Overview of Regulatory Guidance Governing the Use of AI Systems In the Workplace
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
Is Google Search Dead? How AI Is Reshaping Search and SEO
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
While Federal Legislation Flounders, State Privacy Laws for Children and Teens Gain Momentum
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
Revolutionizing Workplace Design: A Perspective from Gray Reed
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
From DeepSeek to Distillation: Protecting IP In An AI World
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.