  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
estate. (Alito, J.))
MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Hill, 436 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court did not have discretion to deny the contractually required arbitration of the debtor's class action claim against her credit card company for willful violation of the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(a). Despite being a "core" bankruptcy proceeding, the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code would not be threatened by arbitration because (1) the debtor's estate had been fully administered and her debts discharged; (2) the class action aspect nullified the direct relationship to her bankruptcy case; and (3) the automatic stay was not so similar to a court injunction that only the Bankruptcy Court could enforce it.)
In re Duran, 483 F.3d 653 (10th Cir. Apr. 4, 2007) (Tenth Circuit adopted district court opinion that a secured creditor did not the violate automatic stay when it repossessed the Debtor's vehicle less than ten days after the entry of the bankruptcy court's order granting relief from the stay. Even though Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001(a)(1) provides that the effect of an order granting relief from the automatic stay is itself stayed for ten days, the creditor's original motion of relief was filed more than thirty days prior to the repossession, and the automatic stay terminated after thirty days pursuant to § 362(e). Because Rule 4001(a)(1) cannot suspend the automatic termination of the stay pursuant to § 362(e), the creditor was not subject to the automatic stay at the time of repossession.)
Rogan v. Bank One, Nat'l Ass'n (In re Cook), 457 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2006) (Secured lender did not violate the automatic stay when, post-petition, it recorded the assignment of a note secured by the debtor's home. Applying state law, the Court rejected the trustee's argument that perfection of the security interest turned on the recording of the assignment. The Court then held that when the lender recorded the assignment it was not transferring legal title in the debtors' property but was only recording an equitable interest in the property. Since the equitable interest did not belong to the debtors, no violation of the automatic stay occurred.)
In re Mirant Corp., 440 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2006) (Agency of the federal government violated automatic stay when it terminated contract with debtor pursuant to ipso facto clause providing for default and a termination payment in the event of a bankruptcy filing. A party must obtain relief from the stay in order to terminate a contract containing an ipso facto clause. The federal agency, thus, violated the stay when it terminated the contract without seeking relief from the stay. Additionally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the agency's subsequent request for stay relief. Although the federal Anti-Assignment Act prohibited the assignment of the contract, the agency did
