Three JAMS neutrals share their perspectives on business interruption and the impact COVID-19 has had on bankruptcy courts
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several actions by a borrower against a mortgagee, and in so ruling also held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the lower court’s remand order, and that the borrower had waived his right to challenge an award of attorney fees and costs in connection with the remand.
In our original article, we prefaced that Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) would likely utilize the Texas Two Step to attempt to resolve its tort liabilities related to talc powder.1 On October 12, 2021, J&J did just that. The company used Texas’s divisive merger statute to spinoff the talc liabilities into a new entity, LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”).
This week, the Ninth Circuit takes a close look at a sizable antitrust jury award, and explains what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of bankruptcy law.
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict holding telescope manufacturers liable for antitrust violations.
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.
The Bankruptcy Protector
The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently reinforced a Pennsylvania bankruptcy court case that was among the first to extend the U.S. Supreme Court’s City of Chicago v. Fulton ruling (which held that mere retention of vehicles repossessed pre-petition would not violate the automatic stay) to the context of account garnishments.
In a split decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently determined that the Bank of New York Mellon (the “Bank”), as first deed of trust lienholder, could challenge a homeowner’s association’s (“HOA”) sale of a property as a violation of an automatic bankruptcy stay, giving the Bank superior title. SeeBank of New York Mellon as Tr. for Certificateholders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Tr. 2005-54CB, Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-54CB v. Enchantment at Sunset Bay Condo. Ass’n, 2 F.4th 1229 (9th Cir. 2021).