On January 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a motion to dismiss filed by a consumer reporting agency in Ewert v. FD Holdings, LLC d/b/a Factual Data, 2021 WL 168967 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 19, 2021). The plaintiff, Lance M. Ewert, filed a bankruptcy petition in 2017, identifying a Chase credit card account as a disputed debt. The credit card debt was ultimately discharged in the bankruptcy case.

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.

This article was originally published in Law360. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors' opinions only.

In Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. 50509 Marine LLC et al.[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. can recover an employer's defined benefit pension plan termination liability--often millions of dollars--from controlled group members that did not even exist when the contributing employer liquidated years earlier.[2]

In 2019, we began following a Circuit split regarding a secured creditor’s obligation to return collateral that it lawfully repossessed pre-petition after receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

In January 2020, we analyzed a split among the Circuit Courts regarding whether a non-debtor holding a debtor’s property on the petition date has an affirmative obligation under section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code to return that property to the debtor immediately following the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

If a creditor is holding property of a party that files bankruptcy, is it “exercising control over” such property (and violating the automatic stay) by refusing the debtor’s turnover demands? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no – instead, the stay under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to affirmative acts that disturb the status quo as of the filing date. In other words, the mere retention of property of a debtor after the filing of a bankruptcy case does not violate the automatic stay.

Alerts and Updates

The Court’s decision provides greater certainty for creditors who passively retain estate property that they obtained pre-petition.

On January 14, 2021, the Supreme Court held in City of Chicago v. Fulton that a creditor does not violate the automatic stay by merely retaining possession of the debtor’s property after a bankruptcy filing. The City of Chicago routinely impounded vehicles owned by drivers with outstanding parking tickets and other fines. The City refused to release the impounded vehicles after the owner of the vehicle filed bankruptcy. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the City’s retention of the vehicles violated the automatic stay.

On Sunday, December 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which provides $900 billion in a second wave of economic stimulus relief for industries and individuals faced with challenges from the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the CAA), which President Trump signed into law on December 27, 2020, amends several provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. While a number of the amendments are applicable only to small businesses (e.g., businesses eligible to file under the new small-business subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code and/or businesses eligible to receive PPP loans), several others have more general application, as discussed below.

* * *

Amendments of More General Application