Banc of America v. Cooker Restaurant (2006)
Decided September 5, 2006; Franklin County No. 05AP-1126. Complete official nine-page opinion retrieved 2026-10-17.
Facts and holding
The lender claimed security in restaurant assets including liquor permits. Competing receivers’ authority brought the permit issue before the court. The appellate court affirmed the ruling that the lender had no enforceable security interest in the Ohio permits (¶¶7–14, 17).
Reasoning and practical impact
Revised Article 9 did not itself determine that the debtor held a transferable property interest in a liquor permit. The court followed controlling Ohio permit law and rejected the lender’s contrary construction; it acknowledged contrary federal language without treating it as controlling state law (¶¶11–14).
The court recognized receivership management authority but left later disposition issues for the proper proceedings (¶¶15–16). It did not establish that a permit could never be handled by an approved receiver. Current OAC 4301:1-1-14(A)(4) expressly supplies the Division-approved receiver-transfer path; R.C. 4303.29 requires consent.
Later treatment
The official Brunner Firm Co., L.P.A. v. Bussard, 2008-Ohio-4684, ¶12, approves the permit-interest rule. kuhlin-v-corner-bar-oh-2013, ¶¶22–29, discusses Cooker consistently while permitting a receiver subject to regulatory approval. This identifies later treatment of the relevant propositions; comprehensive appellate history and later treatment remain needs_verification.
Applies in →
ohio · businesses-and-going-concerns · receivership-sales
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Read the full opinion and current law; later authority may limit this decision.