  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
In re Kreisler, 478 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2007) (Ejectment action against non-debtor wholly owned subsidiary of Chapter 11 debtor did not violate automatic stay. Even though the ejectment action will likely cause the debtor's interest in the tenant to lose value, the stay nonetheless did not apply.)
AC and S, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 435 F.3d 252 (3rd Cir. Jan 19, 2006) (Arbitration award which diminished the estate of the debtor violated the automatic stay pursuant to S 362 and was thus void ab initio.)
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 S 362(a). Despite being a "core" bankruptcy proceeding, the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code would not be threatened by arbitration.)
Suggs v. Regency Financial Corp. (In re Suggs), 377 B.R. 198 (8th Cir. Nov. 5, 2007) (Local rule permitting secured creditor to repossess vehicle if debtor fails to provide proof of insurance enlarges creditors' rights beyond the scope permitted by S 362 and Rule 4001(a). Obtaining property of the estate or of the debtor without permission from the court or even filing a motion, as allowed by the local rule, is in derogation of the limited ex parte relief allowed under Rule 4001(a)).
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. Because Rule 4001(a)(1) cannot suspend the automatic termination of the stay pursuant to S 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, postpetition, it recorded the assignment of a note secured by the debtor's home.)
In re Mirant Corp., 440 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2006) (Agency of the
