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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?