The Bankruptcy Court held that:
Bais Chinuch and the individuals’ invocation of the beis din proceeding - and the issuance of the beis din's ekul, or injunction - are actually directed at the Debtor through its principals with the intention of wresting control of the Debtor’s adversary proceeding and exerting pressure to have it dismissed.... Because of the principals’ identity of interest here with the Debtor, the automatic stay applies to protect them from the beis din.The court went on to hold that enforcement of the automatic stay does not violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It held that RFRA is not applicable, because it does not apply to the Debtor's motion, a private action between private parties. Even if applicable, application of the automatic stay survives RFRA strict scrutiny. The court added, "The automatic stay’s enforcement here does not substantially burden the objectors’ free exercise of religion, moreover, when they have invoked a rabbinical court to decide (and interfere with) an essentially commercial dispute."