Timing Is Everything: Bankruptcy Court Offers Guidance on When a Case Is Considered 'Filed'
The Bankruptcy Court thoroughly examined this issue and found that the "upload" time of a bankruptcy filing—and not the time physically "stamped" on a bankruptcy petition—determines when a case is commenced. In doing so, the Bankruptcy Court offered direction and guidelines that debtors and creditors will be well advised to observe in future cases.
August 10, 2023 at 12:01 PM
8 minute read
Lawrence J. Kotler, left, and Drew S. McGerhin, right, of Duane Morris. Courtesy photos "Mere minutes can be the difference between saving one's home … or losing that home to a foreclosure." With this statement, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court) summed up the importance of the determination as to when a bankruptcy case is actually filed of record, thereby triggering the imposition of the automatic stay. In In re Francisco Procel, Case No. 23-10697-CGM (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2023), Docket No. 47, the Bankruptcy Court thoroughly examined this issue and found that the "upload" time of a bankruptcy filing—and not the time physically "stamped" on a bankruptcy petition—determines when a case is commenced. In doing so, the Bankruptcy Court offered direction and guidelines that debtors and creditors will be well advised to observe in future cases.
Facts and Procedural History
In this case, the debtor filed for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on May 2—the same day that a foreclosure sale was scheduled to be held on an investment property the debtor owned. The foreclosure sale was scheduled to commence at 2 p.m., proceeded as planned, and concluded by 2:05 p.m. The debtor's bankruptcy petition, however, bore a "time stamp" of May 2 at 2:25 p.m.—20 minutes after the foreclosure sale concluded.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All
'In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition
7 minute read
Delaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11
7 minute read
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How I Made Partner: 'Take Every Opportunity to Get Involved in the Business Side of the Firm,' Says Alyssa Domzal of Ballard Spahr
- 2People in the News—Feb. 5, 2025—Eckert Seamans, Rawle & Henderson
- 3Librarian's Termination Violated First Amendment Protections, Lawsuit Claims
- 4Choice-of-Law Issues as the UCC 2022 Amendments Come into Effect
- 5Six Benefits of Taking an Opposing Medical Expert’s Deposition
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
