The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) recently held that merely freezing a debtor’s bank account holding funds that had been garnished by a judgment creditor did not violate the automatic stay. This decision was based on the United States Supreme Court’s ruling last year in City of Chicago v. Fulton, holding that retention of repossessed vehicles that were possessed before a bankruptcy was filed did not violate the automatic stay.
As we move closer to a global recession caused by the current pandemic, some companies will find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to seek bankruptcy relief. This may have some important and often overlooked privacy implications. There is no question that in this day and age, one of a business’ most valuable assets is the personal information that it has collected from its customers and/or end-users – often more so than any of its tangible assets.
In civil litigation, a “final decision” for purposes of appeal is normally limited to an order that resolves the entire case. In general, a ruling cannot be appealed unless it ends the litigation. A bankruptcy case, however, often encompasses many individual controversies. As the United States Supreme Court recently ruled, a bankruptcy court’s order definitively denying a creditor’s request for relief from the automatic stay is a “final decision.” Consequently, the clock on the creditor’s time to appeal starts ticking as soon as the order is entered.
As we previously discussed in our Bankruptcy Bytes video series, the filing of a bankruptcy petition generally gives rise to an “automatic stay” against any attempt to exercise control over the debtor’s property, or property of the bankruptcy “estate” which comes into existence when a bankruptcy case is filed.
On December 27, 2020, President Donald J. Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”) into law. The CAA was enacted in part to expand the economic stimulus relief provided by the Coronavirus, Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) signed into law six months earlier. Like the CARES Act, the CAA temporarily modifies the Bankruptcy Code to provide greater protections for debtors and certain creditors in bankruptcy.
As we move closer to a global recession caused by the current pandemic, some companies will find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to seek bankruptcy relief. This may have some important and often overlooked privacy implications. There is no question that in this day and age, one of a business’ most valuable assets is the personal information that it has collected from its customers and/or end-users – often more so than any of its tangible assets.
Periods of economic uncertainty, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, create challenges not only in receiving timely payment for goods, services and other debts, but in retaining payments when dealing with customers or other obligors who may be on the verge of bankruptcy. A bankruptcy filing opens the door to preference liability, which could result in the obligation to return a payment or other property received prior to the bankruptcy.
In the latest Bankruptcy Bytes, Jay Ross discusses the end-game for Chapter 11 Bankruptcies: reorganization plans and Disclosure Statements.
Steve Kottmeier explains several ways in which creditors actually may want/be helped by a bankruptcy filing.
In our next segment of Bankruptcy Bytes, Liam O’Connor provides an introduction to how creditors can navigate Adversary Proceedings in Bankruptcy Court.