11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(b)(4) does not except a state labor department’s action from the automatic stay when the action primarily seeks unpaid wages for individual employees rather than advancing a broad public policy objective.

In Re Midway Airlines Corp. · filed 2002-10-07(b)(4)

Rather than seeking to promote broad public policy objectives, NCDOL’s claim under the NCWHA serves primarily to recover wages for individual employees. ... The bankruptcy court was correct in concluding that these claims should be determined and paid through the procedures established under bankruptcy law.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a court to impose sanctions on a party or attorney for abuse of the appellate process or violations of court rules despite the debtor’s automatic stay.

Keitel v. Heubel · filed 2002-10-30(b)(4)

Applying these tests in the present case illustrates that the automatic stay does not preclude this court from imposing sanctions on a party and/or his attorney for abusing the appellate process or otherwise violating the rules of this court.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit to take property for road widening undertaken for safety purposes despite the automatic stay.

Commissioner of Transportation v. Krawski, No. 92-0703872 (Nov. 13, 2002) · filed 2002-11-13(b)(4)

The court finds that the widening of a road for safety purposes is an action "by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit's police or regulatory powers." Accordingly, the court finds that this taking was not stayed by the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a State to pursue environmental enforcement under its police power when the action does not seek to enforce a money judgment.

People Ex Rel. Ryan v. Environmental Waste Resources, Inc. · filed 2002-11-19(b)(4)

Here, the State was not attempting to enforce a money judgment against EWR, and its action was a valid exercise of police power. Therefore, the finding that EWR did not perform appropriate closure or postclosure procedures did not violate the bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(b)(4) allows the EEOC to pursue a Title VII enforcement action to judgment and fix money damages despite the debtor’s bankruptcy.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shelbyville Mixing Center, Inc. (In Re Shelbyville Mixing Center, Inc.) · filed 2002-12-20(b)(4)

Accordingly, the automatic stay does not apply to prevent the Commission from proceeding with its action to obtain a judgment against Defendant for violating Title VII and fixing the money damages for that violation. Any judgment which it may obtain, however, is collectible only in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state to pursue civil penalties to enforce its unfair competition laws on behalf of the public despite the defendant’s bankruptcy, where the state seeks no restitution or other private relief.

California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. · filed 2003-03-25(b)(4)

The AG, in opposition, contends that the action with respect to NRG Energy, Inc is not automatically stayed because the case falls within the scope of 11 USC § 362(b)(4), which exempts actions or proceedings “by a governmental unit * * * to enforce such governmental unit’s * * * police and regulatory power.” See PI Opp (Doc # 51). The court agrees. ... Similarly, in the instant case, the AG seeks to enforce its unfair competition laws on behalf of the public by way of civil penalties. The AG does not seek restitution or other private forms of relief that might create a conflict between bankruptcy and other proceedings that would necessitate a stay. ... Hence, the court finds that the bankruptcy proceedings against NRG in Minnesota district court do not stay these proceedings against NRG.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state unemployment agency to enforce a previously imposed denial-of-benefits penalty for claimant fraud when its primary purpose is public policy rather than recovery of overpayments.

In Re Adamic · filed 2003-03-26(b)(4)

Given the permissive nature of the penalties and that the temporal penalty assessed does not correlate to the amount of the overpay-ments, the Court cannot conclude in this case that the “primary” purpose of withholding the Debtor’s current benefits is pecuniary. Accordingly, enforcement of the temporal penalty is not barred by the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) exempts an NLRB subpoena enforcement application from the automatic stay when it serves public labor law enforcement and does not threaten bankruptcy estate assets.

National Labor Relations Board v. McDermott · filed 2003-06-16(b)(4)

I find that the Board’s application in the instant case is exempt under either test. ... I conclude the Board’s application is exempt from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt a prosecutor’s collection of a forfeited bail bond from a bankrupt professional bondsman when the collection serves a pecuniary interest rather than public health or safety.

Geeslin v. Skandalakis (In Re Geeslin) · filed 2003-07-17(b)(4)

Therefore, the exception under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) does not apply to Respondent’s actions.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts the Secretary of Labor’s FLSA enforcement proceeding from the automatic stay when it serves public policy and does not advance the government’s pecuniary interest.

Chao v. BDK Industries, L.L.C. · filed 2003-07-17(b)(4)

Ergo, the Court finds that this enforcement proceeding is exempt from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). This action will not be stayed against Von Behren.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a municipality to enforce housing codes during bankruptcy when its purpose is police or regulatory enforcement rather than gaining a pecuniary advantage over creditors.

City of Shaker Heights v. Green, Unpublished Decision (7-31-2003) · filed 2003-07-31(b)(4)

In order to determine whether an action in a non-bankruptcy court qualifies under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(4) as exempt from an automatic stay, courts balance the purpose of the governmental action at issue: if it relates to the enforcement of police or regulatory powers, the action will not be stayed; but, if it attempts to impart to the governmental unit a pecuniary advantage over other creditors with priority in a debtor's estate assets, it will be stayed. ... As such, Green's unsupported argument that the City's enforcement of the Code was in the furtherance of some pecuniary interest, rather than the legitimate exercise of its police powers, is unpersuasive. ... Consequently, Judge Montgomery correctly ruled that Green's bankruptcy proceedings did not divest the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the housing noncompliance claim against him.

Section 362 permits an SEC enforcement action to proceed to judgment for monetary and injunctive relief despite the defendant’s bankruptcy under the governmental police and regulatory power exception.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Lybrand · filed 2003-09-11(b)(4)

Thus, this action by the SEC is one to enforce the SEC’s “police and regulatory power” and full relief can be entered against Donald Kern, notwithstanding his bankruptcy status.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a state action seeking compliance with environmental laws from the automatic stay even when compliance requires the debtor to spend substantial sums.

New York v. Mirant New York, Inc. · filed 2003-10-15(b)(4)

Mirant contends that compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree will require outlays in excess of $100 million, but that fact does not make the State’s action in seeking entry of a judgment pursuant to the Consent Decree one for the enforcement of a money judgment.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a government agency exercising its police or regulatory power to liquidate damages for past violations, provided it does not enforce a money judgment.

Travacom Communications, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, Dept. of Labor & Industry (In Re Travacom Communications, Inc.) · filed 2003-10-29(b)(4)

Therefore, the Commonwealth validly exercised its Police and Regulatory Power by conducting the June 3, 2003 Hearing even if it thereby sought to accomplish nothing more than a liquidation of damages for past alleged violations of the PPWA by the Debtor, provided, of course, that the Commonwealth refrained from attempting to enforce a money judgment regarding such damages.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except a False Claims Act qui tam action from the automatic stay when the government has declined to intervene.

United States Ex Rel. Goldstein v. P & M Draperies, Inc. · filed 2004-01-06(b)(4)

When the government plays no role in pursuing an action, it can hardly be said that the action was commenced or continued “by” the government. Furthermore, to hold that the exception does not apply to a qui tam action in which the government has declined to intervene does not violate a “clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”

Section 362(b)(4) excepts enforcement of Kentucky’s surface-mining reclamation bonding requirements from the automatic stay because their primary purpose is public safety rather than protection of the government’s pecuniary interests.

Bickford v. Lodestar Energy, Inc. (In Re Lodestar Energy, Inc.) · filed 2004-02-17(b)(4)

For all of the reasons stated above, this Court has determined that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it decided that Appellants’ enforcement of the reclamation bonding requirements under KRS Chapter 350 would violate the automatic stay and abused its discretion in determining that a preliminary injunction of such proceedings would be appropriate.

Section 362(b)(4) permits SEC civil-fraud enforcement and appointment of a receiver to preserve assets through entry, but not enforcement, of a money judgment.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Wolfson · filed 2004-04-07(b)(4)

Having determined that this Court may determine whether the automatic stay applies in this action, the Court concludes that the Commission’s prosecution of this civil fraud action is excepted from the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code Section 362(b)(4), which provides a regulatory exception to the automatic stay. ... Finally, the automatic stay exception also permits this Court to appoint a receiver. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that this litigation is excepted from the automatic stay. The Commission may pursue this action through the point of obtaining a money judgment, assuming it prevails. However, it may not, after obtaining a inoney judgment, enforce such a judgment against the Carlucei Defendants under the present circumstances pertaining to the bankruptcy petitions.

The police and regulatory power exception in § 362(b)(4) does not prevent a bankruptcy court from enjoining an exempt proceeding under § 105(a), but such relief is typically reserved for exceptional circumstances.

Mirant Corp. v. Potomac Electric Power Co. (In Re Mirant Corp.) · filed 2004-08-04(b)(4)

While § 105(a) permits bankruptcy courts to enjoin actions that are excepted from the automatic stay by § 362(b)(4), see In re Cajun Elec. Power, 185 F.3d at 457 n.18., this authority is typically used to stop proceedings excepted under § 364 only “in exceptional circumstances.” Id. (citing Corporacion de Servicios Medicos Hospitalarios de Fajardo v. Mora. 805 F.2d 440, 449 n.14 (1st Cir. 1986)).

Section 362(b)(4) exempts FTC enforcement claims seeking rescission, restitution, and disgorgement to protect public welfare and deter wrongdoing from the automatic stay, even if they also adjudicate consumers’ private rights.

Federal Trade Commission v. Ameridebt, Inc. · filed 2004-09-24(b)(4)

The obvious purpose of the present action, indeed of the FTC Act itself, is protection of the public welfare and the effectuation of public policy respecting the credit counseling industry. Regardless of whether private rights of consumers may be adjudicated in some fashion, in this proceeding the FTC is operating on behalf of the public interest, not as a creditor seeking to assert its own pecuniary interest. ... The remedies sought in this action fit within the exemption provided for government enforcement actions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). The case will not be stayed as to AmeriDebt pending its bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except a governmental action from the automatic stay when its primary purpose is to protect the government's pecuniary interests or adjudicate private rights rather than protect public health and safety or effectuate public policy.

Enron Corp. v. California Ex Rel. Lockyer (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2004-09-29(b)(4)

Having reviewed the arguments of the parties regarding the “public v. private rights” test, the Court finds that the California Litigation was brought to protect the State of California’s “private” rights, and therefore, is not excepted under section 362(b)(4) from the section 362(a) automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts professional licensing proceedings that protect the public from future misconduct rather than recover private debts, even when initiated by a creditor’s postpetition complaint.

McMullen v. Sevigny (In Re McMullen) · filed 2004-10-20(b)(4)

The state power of licensure, which safeguards the public from wrongful future conduct of corrupt or incompetent professionals, falls squarely within the purview of the subsection 362(b)(4) exception to the automatic stay. ... A private party’s reporting of wrongful conduct to governmental regulatory authorities is neither the commencement of a proceeding under subsection 362(a)(1), nor necessarily an “act to collect” under subsection 362(a)(6).

The bankruptcy court decides in the first instance whether an SEC enforcement proceeding is exempt from the automatic stay.

SEC v. Goto · filed 2004-11-18(b)(4)

The decision on whether this proceeding is exempt from the automatic stay belongs to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts proceedings to revoke an attorney’s pro hac vice admission from the automatic stay as an exercise of state police and regulatory powers, even when a creditor initiates them.

Ball v. A.O. Smith Corp. · filed 2005-02-03(b)(4)

In the present case, any action by the State Court of North Carolina to determine the pro hac vice status of a litigant before it qualifies as a valid exercise of the state’s police and regulatory powers and is thus exempted from the automatic stay. The fact that the possible revocation of the admission was initiated by a creditor is immaterial since it does not alter the purpose of the determination by the court — to protect the public from professional misconduct.

Section 362(b)(4)'s police or regulatory power exception exempts a state's antitrust action seeking divestiture to protect electricity consumers from the automatic stay.

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. · filed 2005-02-09(b)(4)

The Attorney General’s suit clearly satisfies the “public interest” test, for it is brought to protect the interest of all electricity consumers in northern California. [14] We therefore hold that the Attorney General’s section 16 Clayton Act suit comes within the “police or regulatory power” exception under § 362(b)(4), and that the automatic stay does not apply.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts a state's federal antitrust suit seeking divestiture to protect consumers from the automatic stay when it serves public welfare rather than the state's pecuniary interests.

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. · filed 2005-02-10(b)(4)

The Attorney General's section 16 Clayton Act suit clearly satisfies the "pecuniary purpose" test. After having been trimmed down by the district court, the suit now seeks only divestiture. The Attorney General does not seek a monetary recovery, and asserts no interest of the state in the three power plants that are the subject of his suit. ... Further, it is clear that the suit seeks to protect the welfare of electricity consumers in northern California by protecting them from the excessive charges that might result from an undue concentration of market power. ... We therefore hold that the Attorney General's section 16 Clayton Act suit comes within the "police or regulatory power" exception under § 362(b)(4), and that the automatic stay does not apply.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a municipality to recover from sale proceeds legal fees incurred in enforcing a junkyard statute as costs of removal and sale without violating the automatic stay.

Patton v. Town of Orford (In Re Patton) · filed 2005-04-08(b)(4)

The question then comes down to whether the legal fees associated with the actions by the Town to enforce the statute concerning junkyards is a cost of removal and sale. This Court finds that they are and, thus, like the expenses of actual removal, are protected by § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) requires a governmental entity to correct violations of or compel compliance with pre-existing public benefit statutes or regulations; merely exercising police or regulatory power does not qualify.

Board of Supervisors v. Royal (In Re Royal) · filed 2005-05-24(b)(4)

Therefore, as indicated by the plain statutory language and supported by the legislative history, we hold that a governmental entity does not enforce its regulatory or police power for purposes of Section 362(b)(4) merely through exercising it. Instead, enforcement requires the governmental entity to be correcting violations of or compelling compliance with pre-existing public benefit statutes or regulations.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts bona fide governmental police and regulatory enforcement actions from the automatic stay based on the complaint’s purpose without a merits inquiry, while enforcement of a money judgment remains stayed.

Diaz v. Texas (In Re Gandy) · filed 2005-07-18(b)(4)

If a governmental unit is attempting to enforce its police and regulatory powers, this Court (as does a state court with concurrent jurisdiction) only looks to the four corners of the complaint to determine if the purpose of the litigation by the governmental unit is to enforce its police and regulatory powers. If the purpose of the state court lawsuit is police and regulatory, the inquiry as to the application of the automatic stay is completed and the action is not stayed. ... Further, although the State is seeking monetary damages, enforcement of any money judgment is stayed.

Section 362(b)(4)'s exception for governmental enforcement of police and regulatory powers does not extend to private parties pursuing discrimination claims in state court.

In Re Barry · filed 2005-09-01(b)(4)

The Mohawk Greenfield decision was directly and clearly based upon § 362(b)(4) — the exception to the automatic stay provided to governmental units. The holding of Mohawk Greenfield cannot and does not extend to private parties.

Governmental restitution claims that protect public welfare without primarily advancing governmental pecuniary interests fall within the police or regulatory power exception to the automatic stay.

City & County of San Francisco v. PG & E Corp. · filed 2006-01-09(b)(4)

Restitution will benefit the public welfare by penalizing past unlawful conduct and deterring future wrongdoing. There is no showing that the restitution claims primarily advance the governments’ pecuniary interests. In these circumstances, the restitution claim fits comfortably within section 362(b)(4)’s “police or regulatory power.”

Section 362(b)(4)’s police and regulatory power exception permits a state pharmacy board to enforce a license revocation intended to stop conduct threatening public welfare.

Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy v. Drug Assist Health Solutions, Inc. · filed 2006-01-31(b)(4)

In this case, the action of the Board in revoking the pharmacy license of Drug Assist was clearly an expression of governmental regulatory power intended, in the Board’s mind, to enjoin conduct threatening the public welfare.

Section 362(b)(4)'s police or regulatory power exception applies to governmental enforcement actions, not actions brought by private parties.

LUCONTONI v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2006-08-23(b)(4)

Governmental unit actions are exempted from automatic stay provision by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4); private party actions are not.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts from the automatic stay a county’s condemnation of property for a new courthouse needed to meet security standards and protect public health, safety, or welfare.

Bevelle v. Jefferson County (In Re Bevelle) · filed 2006-08-25(b)(4)

With the determination that an exercise of eminent domain power in furtherance of public health, safety or welfare is captured by the exception of section 362(b)(4), based on the facts of this case, the Court finds that the County’s action against this debtor is such an action.

Section 362(b)(4) permits the government to pursue False Claims Act claims through entry of judgment, but not enforcement of a money judgment, and does not exempt claims pursued solely by a private relator without government intervention.

United States Ex Rel. Fullington v. Parkway Hospital, Inc. · filed 2006-09-19(b)(4)

In sum, the Court finds that the government’s FCA action against Parkway is not stayed by Parkway’s bankruptcy, pursuant to the § 362(b)(4) police and regulatory power exception. The government may proceed with its action, up until the point that damages are fixed through the entry of judgment. On the other hand, the relator may not proceed with his claims against Parkway because he is not a “governmental unit” and, thus, may not take advantage of the § 362(b)(4) exception from the automatic bankruptcy stay.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts a state supreme court's attorney disciplinary proceedings from the automatic stay as an exercise of police and regulatory power, but leaves the enforcement of monetary judgments and the restraints of § 362(a)(4), (5), (7), and (8) in place.

In Re Arsi · filed 2006-11-01(b)(4)

There can be no function more clearly within the police and regulatory exception to the stay than the actions of the judicial branch of a sovereign in regulating the conduct of and in disciplining the officers of the court. ... Nonetheless, subsections 4, 5, 7, and 8 of § 362(a) and the prohibition against the enforcement of a monetary judgment remain to constrain the exercise of power. ... South Carolina Supreme Court and ODC enjoy the exception from the stay provided by and to the extent of § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4)'s police and regulatory power exception does not permit the NLRB to protect a pecuniary interest in estate property by asserting successor liability against purchasers for prepetition labor claims.

In Re Pan American Hospital Corp. · filed 2007-02-13(b)(4)

Cases such as Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274, 105 S.Ct. 705, 83 L.Ed.2d 649 (1985) demonstrate that (b)(4) was not intended to allow governments to protect a pecuniary interest in property of the debtor or property of the estate. This Court is convinced that the NLRB, in filing the Notice, was attempting to enforce its pecuniary interest in property of the Debtor by asserting successor liability onto the purchaser.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts municipal enforcement of property maintenance standards protecting public health and safety from the automatic stay, including ordinance violation citations, compliance orders, and notices of potential civil penalties.

Phillips v. City of South Bend (In Re Phillips) · filed 2007-03-27(b)(4)

To summarize, the court determines that the City’s actions to enforce its property maintenance standards by issuing ordinance violation citations, orders to comply, and notices of potential civil penalties constituted actions by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power, and § 362(b)(4) excepts those actions from the automatic stay as a matter of law.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state gaming regulator to pursue license-revocation proceedings under its police and regulatory powers even when the license is property of the bankruptcy estate.

Village Rosemont IL v. Jaffe · filed 2007-04-03(b)(4)

This language establishes that even though Emerald’s license is for some purposes “property of the estate,” see 11 U.S.C. § 541, the Code forbids the bankruptcy court from interfering with the government’s police and regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state gambling regulator to pursue license revocation proceedings under its police and regulatory powers even when the license is property of the bankruptcy estate.

Village of Rosemont v. Aaron Jaffe, Emerald Casino, Inc. v. Illinois Gaming Board · filed 2007-05-02(b)(4)

This language establishes that even though Emerald’s license is for some purposes “property of the estate,” see 11 U.S.C. § 541, the Code forbids the bankruptcy court from interfering with the government’s police and regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit to seek entry of a money judgment in a police or regulatory enforcement action, but does not permit enforcement of that money judgment.

California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation) · filed 2007-05-24(b)(4)

First, the automatic stay provision of section 362 bars only a governmental unit’s attempt to enforce a money judgment, not, as here, a suit seeking entry of a money judgment.

Section 362(b)(4)'s police and regulatory power exception does not cover state rehabilitation or liquidation proceedings undertaken solely to protect creditors rather than enforce laws protecting public health, welfare, or safety.

In Re Automotive Professionals, Inc. · filed 2007-06-12(b)(4)

While state authorities are no longer prevented from taking regulatory action against property of the estate, the amendments did not affect the court’s conclusion that liquidation proceedings designed to protect the rights of creditors are not regulatory actions that fall within this exception. ... Because the State is not acting in its regulatory capacity, the regulatory and police power exception to the automatic stay in § 362(b)(4) does not apply.

Section 362(b)(4) permits state regulatory actions affecting estate property but does not exempt state liquidation proceedings undertaken solely to protect creditors.

In Re Automotive Professionals, Inc. · filed 2007-10-23(b)(4)

Thus, although the State may still pursue regulatory interests even if they conflict with the bankruptcy court’s control over the estate, the court must still determine whether those interests actually are appropriately characterized as regulatory. In this case, there is no significant ground for disagreement regarding the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the State is not exercising its police or regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except an action solely to liquidate penalties for an allegedly false environmental report when cleanup is complete and no risk to public health, safety, or welfare remains.

W.R. Grace & Co. v. Campbell (In Re W.R. Grace & Co.) · filed 2008-04-01(b)(4)

The NJDEP action seeking a fine with respect to an allegedly false report, particularly where the cleanup has been completed by a federal agency, where the action is not to address a risk to public health, safety or welfare, and where a risk no longer exists, does not fall under the § 362(b)(4) exception to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts Pennsylvania’s administration of workers’ compensation claims from the automatic stay as an exercise of its police power.

Pope v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · filed 2008-05-21(b)(4)

The administration of workers’ compensation claims by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a valid exercise of its police power and, thus, exempt from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) exempts state enforcement actions primarily aimed at protecting the public from the automatic stay even when the requested injunctive relief may financially affect the debtor’s estate.

Iams Funeral Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Ex Rel. McGraw · filed 2008-07-03(b)(4)

Despite the potential financial impact on lams of the injunctive relief sought by the State, this Court finds that the State’s enforcement action in the Circuit Court of Wetzel County falls squarely within the scope of the police and regulatory power exception. Again, in determining whether the police and regulatory power exception applies in a particular case, a court must look to the primary purposes of the laws being enforced. Because it is apparent from the language of the Preneed Funeral Contracts Act and the Consumer Credit and Protection Act that those statutes were drafted with the primary intent of protecting the public, the Attorney General’s enforcement of those statutes is an exercise of his police and regulatory power.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit to obtain a money judgment for prepetition environmental cleanup costs, but does not permit enforcement of that judgment by seizing the debtor’s property.

In Re: Mystic Tank · filed 2008-10-16(b)(4)

In Nicolet, as in this case, the government merely sought to reduce to judgment its claim for the costs it expended for the pre-petition site clean-up, an action we held was not one enforcing a money judgment because the debtor’s property had not been seized. Nicolet, 857 F.2d at 208. There is no meaningful distinction between Nicolet and this case. As in Nicolet, New York’s state court action sought only the entry of a judgment. New York’s action in obtaining the default judgment was therefore within the police power exception and was not a violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts civil forfeiture proceedings involving proceeds of criminal activity from the automatic stay when their public purposes of punishment and deterrence are not significantly outweighed by private benefits.

Jahn v. United States (In Re Winpar Hospitality Chattanooga, LLC) · filed 2009-02-06(b)(4)

Although the defrauded victims in the criminal case might ultimately benefit from a successful forfeiture action by the government, that outcome does not significantly outweigh the well recognized public benefits of such an action, namely the punishment of a criminal and the deterrence of others who might be like minded. The in rem forfeiture action in this case is closely correlated to and dependent on serious criminal activity. As such, it falls within the police powers exception specified at 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and therefore is not stayed by the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(b)(4)'s police powers exception does not require an explicit request for injunctive relief.

In Re Pollock · filed 2009-02-24(b)(4)

This court therefore finds that an explicit request for injunctive relief is not necessary for finding the police powers exception to apply. The extant pecuniary and public policy tests serve to adequately check the abuse of the police powers exception by the state, and this matter is best resolved by relying upon them.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts governmental actions to fix civil penalties for environmental violations from the automatic stay, but does not permit collection of those penalties.

In Re WR Grace & Co. · filed 2009-03-12(b)(4)

But Congress did provide exemptions, and the Third Circuit has recognized that fixing civil penalties, up to the point of collection, is one such exemption. Given the case law and the legislative history, we conclude that efforts to fix a penalty constitute a permissible exception to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts governmental actions fixing civil penalties for environmental violations from the automatic stay, but does not permit collection of those penalties.

New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. · filed 2009-03-12(b)(4)

Given the case law and the legislative history, we conclude that efforts to fix a penalty constitute a permissible exception to the automatic stay. ... Rather, a “liberal” reading of § 362(b)(4) — permitting the fixing but not collection of civil penalties — has been the norm.

Section 362(b)(4) permits governmental forfeiture actions to obtain possession or control of estate property in furtherance of police and regulatory powers.

Jahn v. United States (In Re Winpar Hospitality Chattanooga, LLC) · filed 2009-04-13(b)(4)

This court agrees that a plain reading of § 362(b)(4) specifically allows acts by governmental units to obtain possession of property of the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate in furtherance of their police and regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a district attorney to commence a state civil forfeiture action in furtherance of governmental police or regulatory powers despite the automatic stay.

Kirschenbaum v. Nassau County District Attorney (In Re Vitta) · filed 2009-07-23(b)(4)

To the extent that the Defendants seek to commence a forfeiture action against the Property pursuant to the same forfeiture statute in state court, which was alluded to in their papers and at the hearing on the Motion, such action will not be stayed by virtue of Bankruptcy Code § 362(b)(4), and the Trustee shall have the right to assert any defenses it has under the Bankruptcy Code including those granted under Bankruptcy Code § 544(a).

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a state securities regulator’s action to disgorge fraud proceeds from the automatic stay as an exercise of police power, even when the debtor is not accused of wrongdoing.

In Re D'Angelo · filed 2009-08-14(b)(4)

The Bureau’s action against the Debtor seeking disgorgement of the benefits from a securities fraud is excepted from the automatic stay by Section 362(b)(4) as an exercise of the state’s police power, even though the Debtor is not accused of violating the securities laws herself.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt a government damages proceeding from the automatic stay when the proceeding seeks to protect the government’s pecuniary interest in estate property.

In Re Young Oil Corp. · filed 2009-11-12(b)(4)

DFI’s objectives in the second phase of the state court action violate the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362, fails the pecuniary interest test and seeks a determination on estate property.

Section 362(b)(4) permits an EEOC Title VII action seeking compensatory and punitive damages to proceed despite the automatic stay when its primary purpose is to protect the public welfare.

U.S. EEOC v. CTI Global Solutions, Inc. · filed 2010-01-25(b)(4)

Nevertheless, the court is persuaded that Plaintiffs primary purpose in bringing this Title VII action is to protect the public welfare; thus, the fact that a secondary, pecuniary interest may be involved does not bring the case outside of the § 362(b)(4) exemption.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts an action from the automatic stay only when a governmental unit brings it to enforce its police or regulatory power; a private party’s action before a government tribunal does not qualify.

In Re Qimonda AG · filed 2010-02-16(b)(4)

Actions brought by private entities are not within the exception of § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4)’s police power exception does not cover proceedings aimed at imposing a private pension funding liability rather than protecting public safety or welfare.

In Re Nortel Networks Corporation · filed 2010-03-09(b)(4)

This is purely an issue of determining which, if any, entities, on an after-the-fact basis, should be financially responsible for funding a pension shortfall. It is clearly a pecuniary matter, and, notwithstanding the importance of the financial matter to the private Trustee, under the case law does not qualify as a matter of public safety or welfare.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state agency to enforce a workers’ compensation insurance debarment despite the automatic stay when the measure serves a public welfare purpose.

Environmental Source Corp. v. Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety (In Re Environmental Source Corp.) · filed 2010-06-08(b)(4)

The primary purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act as a whole is ensuring that employers provide some degree of financial security for employees injured on the job; the use of penalties for non-compliant employers is simply a means by which the state legislature chose to reach that goal. Therefore, the DIA’s enforcement of the statute does not violate the automatic stay even though its continued enforcement of the debarment violates the Supremacy Clause and the Bankruptcy Code’s anti-discrimination provision.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts an International Trade Commission investigation under Tariff Act § 337 from the automatic stay when the agency conducts it to enforce its police and regulatory power, even if a private party filed the complaint that prompted the investigation.

US INTERN. TRADE COM'N v. Jaffe · filed 2010-06-28(b)(4)

In sum, the ITC investigation involving Qimonda for violations of § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was an action brought by a governmental unit to enforce the governmental unit's police and regulatory power within the meaning of § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) excepts an ITC investigation of allegedly infringing imports from the automatic stay when the agency initiates and controls the investigation to enforce its regulatory power, even if a private party filed the complaint.

United States International Trade Commission v. Jaffe · filed 2010-06-28(b)(4)

In sum, the ITC investigation involving Qimonda for violations of § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was an action brought by a governmental unit to enforce the governmental unit’s police and regulatory power within the meaning of § 362(b)(4). As such, the Bankruptcy Court erred in applying the automatic stay to the ITC § 337 investigation under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(b)(4) allows a governmental unit to continue a fraud enforcement proceeding under its police or regulatory power despite the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Financial Solutions & Associates v. Carnahan · filed 2010-07-20(b)(4)

One exception to this automatic stay provision, however, states that the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not operate as a stay of the continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit's or organization’s police or regulatory power. ... Accordingly, the automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code are inapplicable to this proceeding.

Section 362(b)(4) permits the Secretary of Labor to pursue an ERISA injunction and a monetary judgment to replenish employee benefit plans despite the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

In Re Clifton · filed 2010-08-03(b)(4)

Therefore, the Sec. of Labor satisfies both tests to satisfy the exception to the automatic stay set forth in Section 362(b)(4). Since the exception to the automatic stay applies, the actions, thus far, of the Sec. of Labor in seeking a monetary judgment and an injunction against Clifton in the District Court Lawsuit, despite her bankruptcy filing, do not violate the automatic stay set forth in Section 362(a).

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt the FDIC’s acts as a bank receiver from the automatic stay when it is not exercising regulatory power.

Zucker v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re NetBank, Inc.) · filed 2010-11-30(b)(4)

Because Defendant was acting in its capacity as receiver for the Bank, and not in its corporate capacity as a regulator, when it filed its Form 1139 and Form 1120X, and sent the February 2008 Notice to the Debtor (all without seeking relief from the automatic stay), its actions do not fall within the exception set forth in section 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a police and regulatory ERISA enforcement action by the Secretary of Labor from the automatic stay.

In Re Palombo · filed 2011-03-23(b)(4)

The Secretary’s ERISA action is, on its face, excepted from the automatic stay as a police and regulatory action under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) permits a government to enforce a nuisance-abatement order through contempt proceedings, including incarceration, when the compelled acts do not require the debtor to spend money.

In re D'Mello · filed 2011-05-27(b)(4)

The Township’s actions in obtaining and trying to enforce the January 12 order against D’Mello clearly are an exercise of the Township’s “police and regulatory power” within the meaning of § 362(b)(4). This exception to the automatic stay clearly applies to enforcement of the January 12 order against D’Mello, through contempt proceedings which may include incarceration, to the extent that the actions the Township seeks to compel do not require D’Mello to spend or pay money to accomplish the actions.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a government enforcement action from the automatic stay when its claims protect public safety and welfare rather than the government’s pecuniary interest in the debtor’s property.

California Ex Rel. Brown v. Villalobos · filed 2011-07-01(b)(4)

Because each of the claims in the Enforcement Action are brought to protect public safety and welfare, rather than to protect Appellant’s pecuniary interest in Appellees’ property, the Enforcement Action is a police power action within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and should be exempt from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts state bar disciplinary and disbarment proceedings from the automatic bankruptcy stay as exercises of governmental police or regulatory power.

Marshall v. Washington State Bar Associati · filed 2011-08-17(b)(4)

The proceedings of the Supreme Court of Washington and the Bar Association fell under the police and regulatory exception.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts Department of Labor actions to enforce wage and hour protections from the automatic stay, including actions seeking an injunction and liquidated damages.

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp. · filed 2011-12-01(b)(4)

Thus, this Court holds that actions undertaken by the DOL to enforce wage and hour protections fall squarely within the § 362(b)(4) exemption.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt regulatory proceedings primarily aimed at determining liability for a private pension plan’s funding shortfall.

In Re Nortel Networks, Inc. · filed 2011-12-29(b)(4)

Through these proceedings, TPR is primarily seeking to determine the liability for a financial shortfall in a private pension plan. This purpose does not protect the public safety and health as those terms have been applied in the context of the police power exception.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a proceeding continued by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power from the automatic stay, even if a private party filed the complaint.

Halo Wireless, Inc. v. Alenco Communications, Inc. (In Re Halo Wireless, Inc.) · filed 2012-06-18(b)(4)

It neither ignores nor twists the words of the statute to interpret this phrase as excepting suits continued by a governmental unit, without regard to who initially filed the complaint. Accordingly, we find that the PUC actions meet the first requirement of the exception to the automatic stay, because they are being continued by governmental units.

Section 362(b)(4)'s police and regulatory power exception does not permit a government agency to enforce a prepetition order requiring the debtor to pay money.

Grede Foundries, Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review Commission · filed 2012-06-19(b)(4)

The Department's June 17, 2009, order was, in essence (only the title of the document is different), a "money judgment," and was thus excluded from § 362(b)(4)'s "police and regulatory power" exception from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a governmental license disciplinary action brought to enforce regulatory policy, rather than a pecuniary interest, from the automatic stay.

Diso v. Dept. of Commerce · filed 2012-10-08(b)(4)

Accordingly, the license disciplinary action commenced in this case is not subject to the automatic stay, and the Division Order does not violate Section 362(a).

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state to continue a consumer protection suit seeking civil penalties when the suit enforces consumer protection laws and protects the public.

Steffy v. Arkansas ex rel. McDaniel (In re Steffy) · filed 2012-11-21(b)(4)

This Court finds Defendant’s arguments persuasive and based on the undisputed facts of record, it appears that Defendant continued to prosecute its law suit to make certain the consumer protection laws of Arkansas were enforced and its citizens protected from Debtor. As such, this purpose is encompassed within the scope of Section 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) allows governmental entities to exercise police powers despite the automatic stay.

In re Rent-Rite Super Kegs West Ltd. · filed 2012-12-19(b)(4)

Moreover, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(b)(4), the automatic stay does not enjoin governmental entities against actions that constitute an exercise of governmental police powers.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt an environmental proceeding independently brought by a private organization when no governmental unit directs or joins it.

In re Edison Mission Energy · filed 2013-11-19(b)(4)

The Court finds that the police power exception does not apply herein, as the Sierra Club is not a “governmental unit” as defined by Section 362(b)(4) of Bankruptcy Code.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except a municipality’s suit to collect unpaid recycling service fees from the automatic stay when the suit serves a pecuniary purpose rather than directly enforcing police or regulatory powers.

In re Iezzi · filed 2014-01-31(b)(4)

Thus, I conclude that the City’s scire facias proceeding in the C.P. Court to collect the Debtor’s unpaid recycling fees, and the appeal to the Commonwealth Court, are subject to the automatic stay and are not excepted from the automatic stay by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) exempts criminal forfeiture proceedings from the automatic stay as an exercise of governmental police and regulatory powers.

In re Duval at Gulf Harbors, LLC · filed 2014-09-18(b)(4)

First, criminal forfeiture proceedings are exempt from the automatic stay by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), which creates an exception for governmental units exercising their police and regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(4) permits the SEC to seek a temporary asset freeze and related financial relief before entry of a money judgment under the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Wyly · filed 2014-11-03(b)(4)

Therefore, I conclude that the automatic-stay does not apply to the SEC’s request for a temporary asset freeze, expedited discovery, preservation of financial documents, and an accounting.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a court to continue a contempt proceeding to vindicate its authority even when a private party sought the sanction, but execution on a resulting money judgment remains stayed.

Roy v. Coulton · filed 2014-11-25(b)(4)

Thus, Section 362(b)(4) applies in this action because the judiciary, acting through Coulton as a surrogate, in effect “brought” the contempt proceeding. ... This action is REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS to stay execution and levy on the money judgment against Roy pending dissolution of the automatic stay under Section 362(a).

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit to prosecute a police or regulatory action seeking monetary relief through judgment without violating the automatic stay.

In re Guardia · filed 2014-11-25(b)(4)

The Attorney General is not seeking to enforce a monetary judgment against estate assets. The filing of the Complaint against the Debtor and its prosecution up to judgment and the filing of a claim in this bankruptcy all falls squarely within the Attorney General’s police powers pursuant to section 362(b)(4) and is therefore not in violation of the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) permits the SEC to seek disgorgement from a debtor named as a relief defendant when the action primarily serves the public welfare, even if the debtor is not accused of securities fraud.

In re Wyly · filed 2015-01-09(b)(4)

This Court therefore concludes that the SEC acted primarily in the interest of public welfare when it named Dee as a relief defendant in the SEC Action; and thus its action falls within the exception to the automatic stay under § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) permits the government to obtain a judgment on environmental cleanup cost claims under its police or regulatory powers, but execution against debtors remains stayed.

United States v. Federal Resources Corp. · filed 2015-01-12(b)(4)

In sum, the Court holds that the police and regulatory powers exception under § 362(b)(4) applies to the instant proceedings; the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code is inapplicable; and the Court directs the Clerk to enter final judgment as to all parties. Execution of this judgment as to Defendants Federal Resources Corporation and Camp Bird Colorado, Inc., only, is STAYED pending further proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah or upon further order of this Court.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts actions to enforce a governmental unit’s police or regulatory power from the automatic stay.

Perez v. Koresko · filed 2015-02-06(b)(4)

The Court ruled that the case would remain active and proceed because the Secretary’s action was exempt from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), which excepts actions to enforce a governmental unit’s police or regulatory power (Docket No. 446).

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental enforcement action to proceed despite the automatic stay when it effectuates public policy and protects public welfare rather than the government’s own pecuniary interest.

State of N.C. v. Orion Processing, LLC · filed 2015-05-12(b)(4)

Plaintiffs are not protecting their own pecuniary interest but instead are attempting to effectuate public policy and promote the safety and welfare of North Carolina citizens. Therefore, the police powers exception to the automatic bankruptcy stay applies, and this action should proceed notwithstanding Orion’s bankruptcy petition.

Section 362(b)(4) allows a governmental unit to continue an action enforcing its police or regulatory power despite the automatic stay.

FTC v. Gugliuzza · filed 2016-03-03(b)(4)

However, the automatic stay does not prevent the commencement or continuation of an action by a governmental unit such as the FTC to enforce its police or regulatory power, 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), which the action against Gugliuzza clearly is.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts certain governmental police or regulatory actions from the automatic stay but does not exempt a debtor’s state court lawsuit from the bankruptcy estate.

Grego v. Pacific Western Bank · filed 2016-03-16(b)(4)

However, this Court is evaluating the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Appellant’s state court suit is not subject to exemption under § 362(b)(4), which was the stated basis for exemption on Appellant’s amended schedule. ... The Court finds no legal error in the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the claimed exemption was not available.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts monetary and default-judgment sanctions imposed to protect the integrity of the federal court system from the automatic stay.

Leonard v. RDLG, LLC (In Re Leonard) · filed 2016-03-28(b)(4)

Section 362(b)(4) also excepts the sanctions from the stay’s effects.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit to continue an action enforcing its police or regulatory power despite the automatic stay.

Federal Trade Commission v. Commerce Planet, Inc. · filed 2016-03-03(b)(4)

However, the automatic stay does not prevent the commencement or continuation of an action by a governmental unit such as the FTC to enforce its police or regulatory power, 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), which the action against Gugliuzza clearly is.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental agency to continue a civil penalty proceeding that enforces its regulatory power, including review of the penalty assessment.

Wallaesa v. Federal Aviation Administration · filed 2016-06-10(b)(4)

Therefore, the automatic stay does not apply to the civil penalty assessment or to Wallaesa’s petition challenging that determination.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts proceedings to determine, impose, and collect Rule 11 sanctions for litigation misconduct from the automatic stay because courts use those sanctions to deter misconduct.

Sanders v. Farina · filed 2016-07-06(b)(4)

These precedents firmly support the conclusion that proceedings to determine whether Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed—and the imposition and collection of such sanctions—fall within the § 362(b)(4) exception to the automatic stay provision because a governmental unit, namely the court, imposes Rule 11 sanctions for the purpose of advancing a matter of public policy, namely the deterrence of attorney and party misconduct.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt an individual’s damages action from the automatic stay when the individual, rather than a governmental unit, prosecutes it before an administrative law judge.

In re Altegrity, Inc. · filed 2016-11-28(b)(4)

First, I conclude that the STAA Action does not fall within the police powers exception of section 362(b)(4). ... Mr. Barr does is not a governmental unit, and his individual claims in the STAA Action seeking monetary damages are not on behalf of any governmental unit.

Section 362(b)(4) allows governmental units to continue police and regulatory enforcement actions despite a debtor’s bankruptcy stay.

State v. Orion Processing, LLC · filed 2016-12-20(b)(4)

Because both the State and the State Bar are governmental units or organizations under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) (2012), Orion’s bankruptcy proceeding does not stay this action.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a government False Claims Act enforcement action from the automatic stay when it serves public policy and does not give the government a pecuniary advantage over other creditors.

United States v. Vanguard Healthcare, LLC · filed 2017-03-13(b)(4)

Given the clear majority view, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint falls within the Section 362(b)(4) exception to the automatic stay. The Court also finds that the Complaint meets the tests set forth in Chao.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts proceedings to determine Rule 11 sanctions from the automatic stay, but enforcement and collection of an imposed monetary sanction remain stayed.

In re McKenna · filed 2017-04-14(b)(4)

A close reading of these cases, however, does not support his contention for there is an important distinction between proceedings to determine the imposition of sanctions and the nature of such sanctions, and proceedings to enforce and collect monetary sanctions that-have already been imposed. The former is indeed exempted from the automatic stay, but the latter is not.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a state attorney general to pursue a consumer protection action and fix damages, and to enforce nonmonetary relief, but stays enforcement of a money judgment against the debtor.

McClafferty v. DeWine (In re McClafferty) · filed 2017-04-14(b)(4)

However, the Court concludes on the merits that the Defendants have thus far only taken actions that are excepted from the automatic stay by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), and that exception to the automatic stay further allows the Defendants to proceed to fix the value of the damages owed for the conduct of the Debt- or and his company in that proceeding. ... Furthermore, to the extent that the default judgment is nonmonetary, it may be enforced notwithstanding the automatic stay against both the Debtor and his company; to the extent that it is monetary, it may not be enforced against the Debtor personally.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts civil contempt proceedings from the automatic stay when they serve a court’s public policy interest in deterring litigation misconduct.

Dingley v. Yellow Logistics, LLC · filed 2017-04-03(b)(4)

Civil contempt proceedings are exempted from the automatic stay under the government regulatory exemption when the proceedings are intended to effectuate the court’s public policy interest in deterring litigation misconduct.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt a private PAGA action from the automatic stay when the state did not request, direct, join, or intervene in the action.

Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. · filed 2017-04-20(b)(4)

We conclude that the governmental unit exception to the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to Porter’s PAGA action. As a result, the automatic bankruptcy stay does apply to that action, including the appeal that is currently pending before this court.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt a privately brought PAGA action from the automatic stay when the government has not joined or intervened.

Porter v. Nabors Drilling USA, L.P. · filed 2017-04-20(b)(4)

We conclude that the exception does not apply to a claim brought by a private party under PAGA, and we therefore grant Nabors’s motion to recognize the automatic stay in this case.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental civil penalty action enforcing customs fraud laws to proceed through entry of a money judgment despite the automatic stay.

United States v. Rupari Food Services, Inc. · filed 2017-08-10(b)(4)

In sum, as the Government’s civil penalty action here is rooted in its enforcement of the United States customs laws to interdict and remedy the fraudulent importation of merchandise, it falls squarely within the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). Therefore, insofar as the Government seeks only the entry of a money judgment, its action is exempt from the automatic stay effected by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and shall proceed accordingly.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a government customs fraud action to establish liability and obtain a money judgment despite the automatic stay.

United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc. · filed 2017-09-15(b)(4)

The Government seeks in this case to enforce United States customs laws related to the fraudulent importation of merchandise, which is the type of enforcement action that is contemplated under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). Therefore, to the extent that the Government seeks entry of a money judgment, this action against Greenlight is within the exception of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and exempt from the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt from the automatic stay creditor-initiated contempt proceedings to compel discovery for collection of a money judgment.

Harris v. Shayla Stevens & Tozzi Law, LLC (In re Harris) · filed 2018-10-16(b)(4)

Ms. Stevens seeks a "private pecuniary goal," one which does not fall within the exception under § 362(b)(4) and is, therefore, subject to the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a city to continue enforcing a parking violation and the resulting appeal after the debtor files for bankruptcy when the city has not sought to enforce a money judgment.

Dutton v. The City of Philadelphia · filed 2018-10-24(b)(4)

Thus, despite Appellant’s filing for bankruptcy, we conclude that the section 362(b)(4) exception to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision applies to the City’s action to enforce the parking violation against Appellant and his subsequent appeal.

Section 362(b)(4) lets a state continue a consumer protection enforcement action seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, and restitution when the action advances public policy, but collection of a money judgment remains subject to the automatic stay.

In re Energy Guard Midwest LLC · filed 2018-12-11(b)(4)

Because the Court concurs that the State of Kansas's enforcement action meets both the "pecuniary purpose" test and the "public policy" test for showing an action is exempt from the automatic stay under § 362(b)(4), the Court must deny Debtor's motion to enforce the automatic stay. ... In addition, the restitution sought in the State of Kansas action is secondary to the thrust of the state court petition, which is stopping unlawful practices under the Kansas Roofing Registration Act and Kansas Consumer Protection Act. And finally, even restitution itself can be a public policy initiative, as it can discourage unlawful behavior from other roofing contractors. ... In addition, the collection of any monetary judgment ultimately obtained will be a separate issue for this Court. The express language of § 362(b)(4) limits exemption from the automatic stay to "enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment."

Section 362(b)(4) allows a government False Claims Act enforcement action seeking a money judgment to proceed despite the automatic stay when it serves public policy and gives the government no advantage over other creditors.

United States v. Kestner · filed 2019-08-27(b)(4)

As such, the present civil enforcement action falls within the police powers exception specified at 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and therefore is not stayed.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt a government’s withholding of postpetition payments to recover prepetition overpayments when the withholding protects its pecuniary interest rather than enforcing public policy.

THDL Liquidating LLC v. Azar, II · filed 2019-08-29(b)(4)

The only reasonable conclusion is that the Defendants are withholding post-petition payments on account of pre-petition overpayment determinations—the exact conduct that the pecuniary interest test was designed to prohibit. Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendants’ withholding of post-petition reimbursement payments is a violation of the automatic stay as it does not fall within the police power exception.

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt a governmental unit from the automatic stay when it lacks authority to enforce the regulatory law at issue.

Westlake Property Holdings, LLC · filed 2019-09-24(b)(4)

While the Village has standing to have the Review Board’s decision judicially reviewed, it is not granted the regulatory power to enforce the Planning Act and therefore section 362(b}(4) does not shelter the Village from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a government ERISA enforcement action to proceed despite the defendant’s bankruptcy, including entry of equitable and money judgments, but a money judgment against the debtor must be enforced through the bankruptcy proceeding.

Acosta, R. v. Air, LLC · filed 2019-09-25(b)(4)

As an initial matter, the court notes that although defendant Eaton has filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, plaintiff’s action is not subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay. ... However, the code excepts proceedings to “enforce police or regulatory powers of a governmental unit.” § 362(b)(4). This court has previously held that an ERISA action falls under this exception, and that the court may enter both an equitable and money judgment against the debtor provided that the money judgment does not put the Secretary of Labor in a position superior to that of other creditors. ... Therefore, despite Eaton’s pending bankruptcy claim, the court here will continue with this action and enter judgment against him, noting that plaintiff may only enforce the money judgment against Eaton by pursuing a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a government police or regulatory action to seek a money judgment despite the automatic stay, but does not permit enforcement of that judgment.

The State of New Mexico, ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General v. Bloomfield Nursing Operations, LLC · filed 2019-09-26(b)(4)

Second, the fact that monetary relief is sought does not preclude an action from falling within the scope of 11 US.C. § 362(b)(4). The plain language of the statute allows for actions of a money judgment, just not enforcement of a money judgment.

The automatic stay permits a state regulatory action to determine liability and monetary relief, but enforcement of monetary relief against the debtors remains stayed.

State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney General Eric S. v. Ross · filed 2019-09-27(b)(4)

The court further directs the parties to advise the state court that the state court may liquidate the State’s claims, assess any monetary penalties or award other relief against the debtors, but that any action to enforce monetary relief against the debtors is stayed pending further order of this court, and that in the event the state court determines there is a debt that the debtors owe, this court retains exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether that debt is nondischargeable.

Section 362(b)(4) allows a governmental unit to continue an action enforcing bankruptcy consumer protections under its police and regulatory powers despite the automatic stay.

HARRINGTON v. SYNERGY LAW, LLC · filed 2019-09-27(b)(4)

Here, the Motion fits squarely within the governmental unit exception as enforcing the consumer protections set forth in §§ 110, 526, and 528.

Section 362(b)(4) allows the U.S. Trustee to continue a proceeding enforcing bankruptcy consumer protections despite the defendant’s bankruptcy filing.

Matthew C Abel · filed 2019-09-27(b)(4)

Here, the Motion fits squarely within the governmental unit exception as enforcing the consumer protections set forth in §§ 110, 526, and 528.

Section 362 does not authorize a bankruptcy court to enjoin FERC from initiating proceedings or considering whether to modify or abrogate filed electricity rates.

In re: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. · filed 2019-12-12(b)(4)

So the bankruptcy court here did not have jurisdiction (under either § 362 or § 105 of the Bankruptcy Code) to enjoin FERC from initiating proceedings or considering whether to modify or abrogate the filed rates—just as FERC would have no authority under the FPA to enjoin the bankruptcy court from rejecting executory contracts.

Section 362(b)(4) permits the government to continue an injunction proceeding to enforce its police and regulatory powers despite the automatic stay.

United States v. Askins & Miller Orthopaedics, P.A. · filed 2019-12-23(b)(4)

The automatic stay in bankruptcy does not preclude injunctive relief under § 7402(a), as an injunction constitutes the “continuation of an action or proceeding by [the government] . . . to enforce such governmental unit’s ... police and regulatory power . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) excepts government enforcement of property maintenance rules serving public health and safety from the automatic stay.

Victor Achinivu · filed 2020-02-25(b)(4)

Congress has already undertaken the analysis required in this matter when it opted to included 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4)10, which excepts from the scope of the automatic stay actions by governmental units to enforce its police or regulatory powers.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except civil contempt incarceration from the automatic stay when it compels compliance for a private party’s benefit rather than enforcing public policy.

Erhardt v. Baldassarre · filed 2020-07-15(b)(4)

Therefore, the Court must conclude that the bankruptcy court legally erred in determining that Erhardt’s continuing incarceration falls within the scope of § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) permits governmental police-power action during the automatic stay, but that exception does not apply to municipal collection efforts after the bankruptcy case has closed.

Norton v. Town of South Windsor · filed 2020-09-30(b)(4)

The invocation of police power, however, is not applicable under the present facts, principally because the actions taken by the Town were taken after the close of the Debtor’s 2016 Bankruptcy case.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a government False Claims Act enforcement action from the automatic stay when the action serves a regulatory or public policy purpose, even if the complaint also includes payment-by-mistake and unjust-enrichment claims.

United States v. LASR Clinic of Summerlin, LLC · filed 2020-10-12(b)(4)

Here, the Court is satisfied that the instant action brought under the False Claims Act against Defendants falls within the § 362(b)(4) exception.

Section 362(b)(4) allows a governmental unit to pursue police or regulatory relief, but does not allow it to enforce a money judgment against the debtor.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2020-12-04(b)(4)

The remainder of the list, however, clearly contemplates the enforcement of a money judgment, which is an exception to the exception. This the Commonwealth is not allowed to do.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a state Medicaid fraud enforcement suit from the automatic stay when the suit serves public policy rather than private rights.

RGV Smiles by Rocky L. Salinas D.D.S. P.A. and Rocky Salinas · filed 2021-01-06(b)(4)

Thus, the Court finds that the State Court Action is excepted from the automatic stay pur- suant to § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) excepts government police and regulatory enforcement proceedings from the automatic stay without requiring the bankruptcy court first to decide whether the exercise of that power is proper.

The Cracked Egg LLC · filed 2021-01-07(b)(4)

First, nothing in section 362(b)(4)’s police or regulatory power exception to the automatic stay conditions its application upon this Court making a gatekeeper determination as to whether an exercise of police or regulatory power is proper in the first instance.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except a state’s suit to enforce a hospital asset purchase agreement when the suit primarily seeks monetary relief and adjudication of private contract rights.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Americore Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-02-10(b)(4)

However, in the context of this suit and this case, the Court finds the stay exception inapplicable. ... Finally, relief here would allow provincial adjudication of the APA parties’ private rights with only incidental public benefit.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a Labor Department FLSA enforcement action seeking an injunction, back wages, and liquidated damages to proceed despite the employer’s bankruptcy petition.

SU v. GAUDIN · filed 2021-03-18(b)(4)

The Court concludes that this proceeding falls within § 362(b)(4)’s police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay and will thus proceed in this Court.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a bankruptcy court to continue contempt sanctions aimed at enforcing compliance with its orders or preserving its dignity, even when the sanctions include attorney’s fees, if their purpose is not simply to enforce a money judgment.

Hunt v. Kopylov · filed 2021-03-31(b)(4)

If the “purpose” of the order is to enforce a money judgment, then it is stayed; but if the order was entered to enforce compliance with the Bankruptcy Court’s other orders or uphold its dignity, it is not.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts state court contempt proceedings from the automatic stay when they primarily enforce court orders and public policy rather than collect a debt, even if they impose monetary sanctions or require disgorgement.

Kupperstein v. Schall · filed 2021-04-22(b)(4)

With no more arguments to address and considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the probate court's contempt orders are excepted from the automatic stay under the police power exception.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a government agency to continue an FLSA enforcement suit when its public policy purpose predominates, even if the suit may produce a money judgment to be enforced in bankruptcy.

Acosta v. Hibachi Seafood Buffet H & Z, Inc. · filed 2021-05-11(b)(4)

Such a goal is squarely within the police and regulatory functions of the DOL and exempt from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a child support agency’s notification to another agency of a debtor’s payment status from the automatic stay when the notification furthers child support policy.

Lockhart v. Washington County Child Support Enforcement Agency · filed 2021-06-24(b)(4)

Here, the court finds that WVBCSE’s notification is excepted from the automatic stay under § 362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a government animal control agency’s seizure and disposal of animals under its police and regulatory powers from the automatic stay.

Karen Anne Mitchell-Smith · filed 2022-06-17(b)(4)

Accordingly, HCAC’s actions were excepted from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(b)(4), and HCAC did not violate the stay by transferring the cats to different facilities.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts proceedings to impose Rule 11 sanctions from the automatic stay, allowing an award of attorney’s fees and costs despite the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.

Mogan v. Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP · filed 2022-07-25(b)(4)

“As an award of sanctions under Rule 11 is not subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay, there is no reason to stay the Airbnb Defendants’ motion.” ... The Court DENIES Mogan’s request to stay under Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

Section 362 permits government environmental enforcement under the police powers exception, but a governmental pecuniary interest may warrant examination of whether the stay applies.

Boyce Hydro, LLC · filed 2022-12-09(b)(4)

The Western District Action was initiated by the State of Michigan, DNR and EGLE to enforce the natural resource and environmental laws, all pursuant to their police powers. On its face, there is no prohibition in the Bankruptcy Code or applicable case law barring the State of Michigan, DNR and EGLE from this action. It is when the pecuniary interest of the State of Michigan, DNR, or EGLE comes into play that this Court can or should examine the actions of these entities.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a federal Clean Water Act enforcement action from the automatic stay as an exercise of governmental regulatory power.

United States v. Sweeney · filed 2023-04-10(b)(4)

Because this lawsuit is brought by the United States to enforce the Clean Water Act, it falls within the statutory exception for the government’s regulatory action See 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) (Filing of petition does not operate as stay “of the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit . . . to enforce [its] police and regulatory power[.]”); JSR at 4 (collecting cases applying section 362(b)(4) in the context of federal environmental cases, including Clean Water Act civil enforcement actions).

Section 362(b)(4) permits the Department of Labor to obtain a judgment enforcing overtime laws against a debtor, but execution on that judgment requires leave of the bankruptcy court.

U.S. Department of Labor v. Serenity Home Healthcare LLC · filed 2023-07-14(b)(4)

For this reason, the Court will enter judgment against Defendant Ofori as the Government’s action in this case is exempt from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy code. However, the Government will be directed to refrain from executing on that judgment unless leave is obtained from the bankruptcy court.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts a municipality’s actions responding to code violations in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare from the automatic stay.

Lisa M. Jones-Mason - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2023-09-29(b)(4)

The record in this case demonstrates that Defendant Willingboro Township’s were taken in response to Debtor’s violations of Township Code in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. Such actions fall squarely within the exception to the automatic stay under § 362(b)(4) and, thus, there is no violation.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except a forfeiture effort from the automatic stay when the complaint plausibly alleges that the government seeks estate funds not traceable to the criminal defendants.

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors v. BlockFi Inc. · filed 2023-10-10(b)(4)

Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded by the rationale in In re WinPar and holds that—under the circumstances of this case—the police power exception to the automatic stay under § 362(b)(4) is inapplicable.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts SEC enforcement actions that exercise the agency’s regulatory powers from the automatic stay.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Earle · filed 2024-01-12(b)(4)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), the SEC’s action against Defendant Earle, Jr. is exempt from the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) does not allow governmental forfeiture of disputed digital assets until the bankruptcy court resolves whether the assets are property of the estate.

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors v. BlockFi Inc. · filed 2024-01-30(b)(4)

If the court determines the disputed digital assets are not property of the estate, then the police and regulatory exception in § 362(b)(4) would allow the forfeiture of the digital assets. The threshold issue of whether the digital assets are property of the estate must be resolved before the United States can proceed.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit exercising police or regulatory power to pursue a debtor and estate property and enforce resulting orders, but not to collect a money judgment.

MV Realty PBC, LLC v. Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida e · filed 2024-02-07(b)(4)

Under section 362(b)(4), when exercising its police and regulatory power, a governmental unit may pursue the debtor and property of the estate, and obtain and enforce any resulting judgment or order, other than collect a money judgment.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a governmental unit to pursue police and regulatory proceedings, but does not exempt immediate enforcement of a money judgment through ongoing rent abatements from the automatic stay.

MP PPH LLC · filed 2024-03-12(b)(4)

For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the continued enforcement of the rent abatement established in the Contempt Order is not excepted from the automatic stay under the police and regulatory exception of § 362(b)(4), and is therefore stayed pursuant to § 362(a).

Section 362(b)(4) allows a government enforcement proceeding and related civil contempt finding to continue after a defendant files for bankruptcy when they enforce police or regulatory powers rather than a money judgment.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cell>Point, LLC · filed 2024-03-15(b)(4)

As discussed below, the Court concludes that finding Terry Colip in contempt of the Court’s December 28, 2022 order does not violate the stay imposed on these proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) by Terry Colip’s filing for bankruptcy. The SEC sought this contempt order to enforce its police and regulatory powers and not to enforce a money judgment, as no money judgment has been entered in this case.

Section 362(b)(4) allows a government enforcement action addressing fraud to proceed against a debtor despite the automatic stay.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cell>Point, LLC · filed 2024-03-15(b)(4)

As such, the Court finds that Terry Colip’s filing for bankruptcy does not stay the proceedings in this case.

Section 362(b)(4) excludes the SEC’s enforcement claims from the automatic stay.

Greenpoint Tactical Income Fund LLC · filed 2024-02-08(b)(4)

The court additionally declines on grounds of comity, judicial efficiency, and avoidance of administrative difficulties the invitation to impose a prior restraint on the Fund’s ability to litigate in the district court, a proceeding that, at least as to the SEC’s claims, is excluded from the §362(a) stay by §362(b)(4).

Section 362(b)(4) does not exempt an agency’s postpetition effort to turn an existing money judgment for environmental repairs into a debtor’s personal repair obligation from the automatic stay.

Stephen David Samost · filed 2024-04-02(b)(4)

Accordingly, the court determines that based on the current procedural posture of the state court litigation, including the entry of a money judgment against the Debtor, the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay is not applicable and the NJDEP has violated the automatic stay.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts contempt proceedings intended to deter violations of court orders from the automatic stay.

Gray v. Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC · filed 2024-05-22(b)(4)

Additionally, the “police or regulatory powers” exemption applies to these contempt proceedings because the intent is to effectuate public policy in deterring violation of this Court’s orders.

Section 362(b)(4) permits entry of a money judgment in a governmental police-power action while precluding enforcement of that judgment.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. USASF Servicing, LLC · filed 2024-08-28(b)(4)

By only precluding enforcement of money judgments in police power actions, Congress inherently permitted the entry of money judgments.

Section 362(b)(4) permits a court to impose sanctions under its inherent power despite the automatic stay because imposing sanctions is an exercise of police power.

Bowers v. Clearone Communications, Inc. · filed 2024-11-27(b)(4)

Regardless of when ClearOne requested sanctions, the sanctions were imposed by the court pursuant to its inherent power to impose sanctions and a court’s imposition of sanctions is a police power that falls under the § 363(b)(4) exception.

Section 362(b)(4) does not except enforcement of a prepetition monetary fine from the automatic stay.

Black Diamond Energy of Delaware, Inc. · filed 2024-11-27(b)(4)

Turning first to the $5,000 fine, the Court finds that the Commission has not shown that the enforcement of this piece of Order 205-2021 is excepted from the stay.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts court-ordered CR 11 sanctions from the automatic stay as exercises of governmental regulatory power.

Quality Loan Service Corp. V. Ngoc Van Hoang Nguyen · filed 2025-01-21(b)(4)

Because the trial court’s CR 11 sanction amounts to a governmental regulatory action exempt from an automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4), we affirm.

Section 362(b)(4) permits an EEOC action to enforce public policy against employment discrimination to proceed despite the automatic stay.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Intrepid Gymnastics, LLC · filed 2025-05-21(b)(4)

Because the EEOC’s Complaint seeks to enforce public policy against employment discrimination, the court finds that the action satisfies the public policy test and should be subject to the automatic stay exception.

Section 362(b)(4) excepts an SEC enforcement order from the automatic stay when it furthers the agency’s police and regulatory powers and serves a public purpose rather than a pecuniary one.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley · filed 2025-07-23(b)(4)

WHEREAS, the Court finds that the Commission has brought this action to enforce the federal securities laws, in furtherance of the Commission’s police and regulatory powers, and the relief sought by the Commission and provided in this Order is in the public interest by preserving the illicit proceeds of fraudulent conduct, penalizing past unlawful conduct and deterring future wrongdoing, and is not in furtherance of a pecuniary purpose, and therefore, the Court concludes that the entry of this Order is excepted from the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §362(b)(4).

For § 362(b)(4)’s police and regulatory power exception, a request for monetary contempt sanctions is judged by the requester’s primary purpose, even when the award is payable to a private party.

Markham v. Auto Cycle Exchange Services, Inc. · filed 2025-08-15(b)(4)

The applicability of the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay depends not on the purpose for which the state court imposed the monetary award but the primary purpose for which Appellees requested the award.

Section 362(b)(4) exempts an NLRB unfair labor practice hearing from the automatic stay when it seeks to establish liability for unfair labor practices.

ARP Hospitality Group LLC · filed 2025-09-12(b)(4)

Here, the Court finds that the Hearing is within the § 362(b)(4) exemption to the automatic stay.