The automatic stay is a procedural tool in a bankruptcy case that effectively halts efforts by creditors to collect on a debtor’s outstanding obligations. As discussed in more detail in our prior post, immediately upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, a “bankruptcy estate” is created, which includes virtually all assets of the debtor.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 went into effect December 1, 2011. It was implemented to address a perceived problem in “cure and maintain” Chapter 13 cases (cases in which the debtor cures any pre-petition arrearage and maintains monthly post-petition payments on long-term loans) – that mortgage creditors were not providing the debtor with notice of post-petition payment changes and fees assessed post-petition, causing debtors to often exit a successful Chapter 13 with a delinquent loan.

Many creditors have been warned of the need to halt collection efforts once they are put on notice that a debtor has filed for bankruptcy. However, the “why” behind this warning, mainly the automatic stay, is often misunderstood or disregarded. Since violations of the automatic stay can have serious ramifications, it is crucial that creditors know what the automatic stay is, what it protects, and how to get relief from the stay so that the creditor can proceed with collection efforts.

What Is the Automatic Stay? What Does It Protect?

The Second Circuit’s August 2021 decision in In re Gravel, 6 F. 4th 503, has already received considerable attention and generated much debate over the last few months.

A few changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2021. The most noteworthy change relates to Bankruptcy Rule 9036, which addresses notice and service by electronic transmission.

A district court judge recently reversed and remanded a well-known bankruptcy decision discharging a significant student loan debt.

SU M M ER 2 02 1 | I F LR .C O M | 1 T he Hong Kong Companies Court has made a number of rulings concerning mainland Chinese corporate groups listed in Hong Kong SAR which illustrate the evolving landscape of cross-border insolvency law.These cases may, in some instances, cause creditors and debtors to re-evaluate some of the enforcement and defensive strategies traditionally used in the insolvencies of such companies.

1 Contact Information If you have any questions concerning this update, please contact: Naomi Moore Partner [email protected] Hong Kong +852 3694.3050 Abid Qureshi Partner [email protected] New York +1 212.872.8027 Liz Osborne Partner

In the groundbreaking recent decision in Re Samson Paper Company Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) [2021] HKCFI 2151 (“Samson”), the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Hong Kong court”) has for the first time issued a letter of request to a court in mainland China under the new cross-border mutual recognition, assistance and cooperation arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China (the “Mainland”) in relation to corporate insolvency and restructuring matters (the “Cooperation Arrangement”), which took effect on May 14, 2021.

Beginning on February 13, 2021, something unprecedented happened in the state of Texas—a winter storm caused temperatures to dip well-below freezing. This event, dubbed the “Black Swan Winter Event,” caused Texas to experience a catastrophic energy crisis. As demand for energy soared, supply plummeted as power plants tripped offline and natural gas supply lines froze. The storm raged on, and on February 16, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUCT”), which oversees the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.