In re Aura Systems, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
347 B.R. 720 (2006)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
In 2005, Aura Systems, Inc. (Aura) (debtor), a Delaware corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During bankruptcy proceedings, certain claimants (the claimants) (creditors) claimed secured-creditor status related to a prior lawsuit. More specifically, the claimants’ proof of claim claimed a security interest in Aura’s accounts receivable, equipment, and inventory pursuant to a judgment lien. The claimants had sued Aura approximately 10 years earlier for alleged violations of federal securities laws related to their purchase of Aura common stock. The parties reached a settlement, and Aura agreed to pay the claimants $4 million in monthly installments. However, in 2002, Aura defaulted on the monthly installments. Accordingly, the claimants obtained a $923,250 judgment against Aura for the unpaid installments. Before Aura filed for bankruptcy, the claimants filed a notice of judgment lien with the California secretary of state. Aura objected to the claimants’ claim and moved for summary judgment on the ground that the filing of a notice of judgment lien with the California secretary of state against a non-California corporation with property in California did not create a judgment lien.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bufford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.