Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc. v. Zelnik (In Re Bidermann Industries U.S.A., Inc.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the stay under § 362(a)(1) is not automatically extended to non-debtors, and must be affirmatively extended
• holding that “section 362(a)(1) does not apply automatically to stay actions against non-debtors”
• concluding “section 362(a)(1) does not apply automatically to stay actions against non-debtors”
• “[U]nusual circumstances do not exist where the debtor’s insider is independently liable, the right to indemnity is not absolute, and the continuation of the suit will not interfere with the bankruptcy.”
• “The case law indicates that ‘unusual circumstances’ exist where the claim clearly arises out of the defendant’s actions in his capacity as the debtor’s officer, and he is undisputedly entitled to indemnity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).