Preliminary Injunctions To Enjoin UCC Foreclosures Amid the Pandemic
An analysis of decisions which reflect a marked change in how courts have addressed attempts to enjoin UCC foreclosures in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
December 04, 2020 at 11:15 AM
10 minute read
Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York State courts regularly denied preliminary injunction motions seeking to enjoin lenders from pursuing foreclosure of the membership interests in property owning entities under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Courts typically denied such motions on the ground that borrowers were unable to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, and that monetary damages were an adequate remedy for addressing any alleged lender misconduct.
However, New York State courts have issued multiple decisions granting preliminary injunctions enjoining UCC foreclosures during the pandemic, including in D2 Mark LLC v. Orei VI Investments LLC (Index No. 652259/2020) (Mark Hotel), Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 BWAY LLC, Index No. 652971/2020 (N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct.) (Shelbourne), GVS Portfolio 1B, LLC v. Teachers Insurance Annuity Association of America, Index No. 654095/2020 (N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct.). These decisions reflect a marked change in how courts addressed attempts to enjoin UCC foreclosures in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
The UCC provides that every aspect of a disposition of collateral, including, the method, manner, time, place and other terms of the sale, must be commercially reasonable. N.Y. U.C.C. §9-625. A borrower looking to enjoin a secured party from conducting a perceived "commercially unreasonable" UCC foreclosure sale must satisfy the well-established rule in New York governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction, which requires: (i) a likelihood of success on the merits (in this scenario, a likelihood that the proposed disposition will violate the UCC); (ii) irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction; and (iii) a balance of equities that favors an injunction. See Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 839, 840 (2005).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMall of America Dealt Another Blow in Quest to End $10-Per-Year Lease With Sears
3 minute readBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Federal Sex Crimes Charges
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 2De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 3Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 4Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 5Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250