  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
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.)
In re J.A. Jones, Inc., 492 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. June 26, 2007) (Estate of motorists killed in a highway accident in a construction zone was a known creditor of construction firm debtor and, thus, entitled to actual notice of proof of claim bar date.)
In re Myers, 491 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. June 21, 2007) (Dismissal of Chapter 13 petition and retroactive annulment of automatic stay were appropriate based on debtor's bad conduct. State court fraudulent transfer action was pending pre-petition against debtor and corporation of which she was the only shareholder. The bankruptcy also properly annulled the automatic stay, and this annulment had the effect of ratifying the state court actions that were voidable as violations of the automatic stay.)
In re Myers, 491 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. June 21, 2007) (Dismissal of Chapter 13 petition and retroactive annulment of automatic stay were appropriate based on debtor's bad conduct. State court fraudulent transfer action was pending pre-petition against debtor and corporation of which she was the only shareholder. On the motion of the state court plaintiff, the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the petition under S 1307(c) and refused to convert it to a Chapter 7 case pursuant to S 1307(a).)
In re Johnson, 501 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2007) (Automobile retailer willfully violated automatic stay by repossessing debtor's vehicle after Chapter 13 petition was filed and refusing to return the vehicle after learning of the filing. Retailer did not receive official notice of the bankruptcy case because of debtor's error in listing retailer's address on the petition, but debtor's attorney called the retailer, informed retailer of the bankruptcy and requested return of the vehicle. Retailer believed the call was a scam by debtor to regain possession of the vehicle. Retailer's belief was based on the demeanor of debtor's attorney, which seemed unlike that of other attorneys with whom the retailer had dealt, the attorney's refusal to provide documentation proving debtor had filed a bankruptcy petition and retailer's belief that debtor's previous bankruptcy prevented filing of another petition. In order to prove a willful violation of the automatic stay under
