Skip to main content

S. 610 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1997

Submitted by webadmin on

To implement the obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, known as `the Chemical Weapons Convention' and opened for signature and signed by the United States on January 13, 1993.
Big Changes in Stay Exemptions Brewing


Written by:

Bruce A. Markell

Professor of Law

Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington

bmarkell@polecat.law.indiana.edu

Web posted and Copyright ©
June 25, 1997, American Bankruptcy
Institute.

Editor's Note:

Other Commentary on Section 603 of S. 610:

The Changes

here
are some potentially large changes to the automatic stay brewing in Congress. The Chemical
Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1997", S. 610, which
passed the Senate on May 23, and
which was introduced in the House on June 10, has changes to the exemptions to the automatic
stay which go way beyond Chemical Weapons treaties.

The full text of Section 603 of the bill, which would make the changes, is reproduced below. In essence, the changes increase the current exemptions from the
stay for governmental entities seeking to enforce any police or regulatory power (it is
not limited to actions under the Chemical Weapons Treaty).

Section 603 accomplishes this sweeping change by first eliminating the current exemptions for
police and regulatory activity (§§362(b)(4) and 362(b)(5)). It then replaces them
with an omnibus exemption for any actions stay by §362(a)(1) (the commencement or
continuation of an action on a pre-petition claim), §362(a)(2) (the enforcement of a
pre-petition judgment), §362(a)(3) (any act to take possession or control of property of the
estate or of the debtor) and §362(a)(6) (any act to collect, assess or recover a pre-petition
claim). The exemption will apply if the actions are "the commencement or continuation of an
action or proceeding by a governmental unit . . . to enforce such governmental unit's . . . police
and regulatory power, including the enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment,
obtained in an action or proceeding by the governmental unit to enforce such governmental unit's
. . . police or regulatory power."

Similar changes do not appear in the House companion bill, HR 1590,
sponsored by Lee Hamilton of Indiana.

Current Law

Under current law, a governmental entity is not restricted in enforcing its police or regulatory
powers so long as it does not try to take possession or exercise control over property of the
estate. For example, the government can continue or initiate a criminal prosecution and can
initiate an injunctive proceeding to stop pollution, even if such activities relate back to a period
before the petition.

What the government cannot do, however, is take control of estate property, in part because
it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court under §1334(e) of the Judicial
Code (title 28, U.S.C.). For example, the government cannot take control of transferrable liquor
licenses, or exercise its regulatory powers for private gain. If there is any question, the
government can always seek relief from the stay, in many cases on an ex parte basis
(depending on the emergency), and if there is a problem with any legitimate action, the stay can
always be retroatively annulled. (Technically, §§362(b)(4) and (5) currently contain
no exemptions for actions stayed under §362(a)(3)).

Effect of the Changes

Under the change contained in Section 603 of the Chemical Weapons bill, governmental entities
need not worry about the stay if they determine that their action fits within police or regulatory
power. This is because it adds, for the first time, exemptions to §362(a)(3) and
§362(a)(6) for any exercise of police or regulatory powers by governmental entities. If
adopted, §362(b) would exempt, for example, the seizure and destruction of T-shirts in the
debtor's warehouse if they violate copyright law. It could also conceivably be used to justify the
seizure and sale of a $1000 care containing $100 of contraband drugs, with the legitimate $900
profit going to tax coffers instead of creditors. [Note: at least one circuit has held that civil
forfeitures relating to pre-petition exemptions are already exempt from the stay. In re
James, 940 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1991). There are, however, cases that go the other way: See
In re Goff, 159 BR 33 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1993); In re Thomas, 179 BR 523 (Bankr.
E.D. Tenn. 1995) (post petition seizure); In re Ryan, 15 BR 514 (Bankr. D. Md. 1981).]

Exceptions for Collection Activity?

The bill also permits, by including an exemption to §362(a)(6), governmental action
pursuant to the police or regulatory power in order to collect a debt. (§362(a)(6) stays
"any act to collect, assess or recover a [pre-petition] claim.") I can't figure that one out, but I
guess some court will have to.

Double Whammy:

Seminole and the Exemption from §362(a)(3)

This legislation is particularly troubling in light of the uncertainty caused by the Supreme Court's
decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (1996). Under some
readings of Seminole, the states (but not municipalities) are immune, under the Eleventh
Amendment, from jurisdiction in bankruptcy court. If so, whether they may be sued in state court
then turns on the status of sovereign immunity under state law.

This leads to the specter of a state making a unilateral determination that a seizure is
permitted by its interpretation of its police and regulatory powers, and then never having
that issue reviewed in any court, federal or state. To put it in context, if a state
determines that products manufactured by a debtor violate state unfair trade law, and if state law
permits civil seizure and forfeiture in such circumstances, the whole business may be confiscated
without ever having to seek bankruptcy court relief.

After confiscation, the identity of who may challenge the state's determination, and how it
will be challenged, will solely be a function of state law. This can be troubling, especially in light
of recent Supreme Court determination that co-owners and lienors need not be given any
opportunity to contest a civil forfeiture. Bennis v. Michigan, 116 S. Ct. 994 (1996)
(upholding Michigan statute allowing car to be forfeited as abatable nuisance after man engaged
service of prostitute in car, notwithstanding state's failure to reimburse man's wife's part
ownership interest).

Lack of Public Input

As far as I know, there were no hearings or any testimony on the issue. Press releases from Sen.
Grassley's office indicate that the changes were suggested by the National Association of
Attorneys General. There is nothing in the public record to explain why the changes go beyond
changes necessary to implement the Chemical Weapons convention.

One irony behind these changes is that one of the reasons that Congress created the National Bankruptcy Review
Commission was to stop piecemeal riders such as that found in the Chemical Weapons bill.
The Commission initially rejected the type of amendments set forth in the Chemical Weapons bill
last fall, but decided early this year to discuss them again. When it finally was able to fit the
discussion onto its agenda, at the Friday, June 20 meeting of the Commission in Detroit, the
Commission was reduced to a roundtable discussion on the effect of pending legislation, rather
than an investigation of what ought to be the law.


The Text of the Bill

Here are the changes, found in Section 603 of S. 610:

Section 362(b) of title 11, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

"(4) under paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (6) of subsection (a) of this section, of the
commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a
governmental unit or any organization exercising authority under the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction,
opened for signature on January 13, 1993, to enforce such governmental
unit's or organization's police and regulatory power, including the
enforcement of a judgment other than a money judgment, obtained in an
action or proceeding by the governmental unit to enforce such
governmental unit's or organization's police or regulatory power; "

ABI Tags
Senate
105