St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Labuzan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that principals in their capacity as creditors, not officers, had standing to pursue stay violations
• holding that individuals other than the debtor have standing to pursue a claim under § 362(k) and noting in its examination of the scope of the term \individual\ that a district court within the Fifth Circuit has held that a corporate creditor fell within that definition
• “Accordingly, we hold debtors and creditors are entities whose grievances fall ‘within the zone of interests’ protected by § 362(k).”
• “If Congress intended to abrogate the prudential standing requirement by enacting § 362(k), that intent is not expressed clearly.”
• “Congress could have easily included § 362(k) claims under the ‘property of the estate’ umbrella.”
• ‘‘[The] plain language of [11 U.S.C.] § 541 (a) (1) implies that [an 11 U.S.C.] § 362 (k

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).