Is It Necessary To Give Unsecured Creditors Notice of Motions in Receivership Cases?


QUESTION: In an operating receivership with an impaired secured creditor, where there is no possibility of payment to unsecured creditors, is it necessary to notice unsecured creditors on motions?

ANSWER: The answer is “no” if the receivership is in state court; the answer is “maybe” if the receivership is in federal court. In a state court receivership, unlike in a bankruptcy case, notice of motions need only be sent to the parties to the receivership case. Creditors having claims against the entity in receivership or the receivership estate are not parties, and hence are not entitled to notice, unless they formally intervene. See generally, C.C.P. §1004, which refers to service on “parties”. The only reason creditors in bankruptcy cases receive notices is that they are defined as “parties in interest” under the Bankruptcy Code and the Code and/or the Bankruptcy Rules require that they be given notice of certain motions. Additionally, the concept of a request for notice is confined to bankruptcy cases and implemented by Bankruptcy Rule 2002.

As to notice in a federal receivership, whether notice to creditors will be required depends on what federal district the receivership is in. In the Central District of California, Local Rule 66-8 provides that except as otherwise ordered by the Court, a receiver is to administer the estate “as nearly as possible in accordance with the practice in the administration of estates in bankruptcy”. As a corollary of this, Local Rule 66-7 provides that a receiver is to give notice by mail not only to all parties to the action but “to all known creditors of the defendant” for certain specified motions, including petitions to confirm the sale of real and personal property; reports of the receiver; applications for instructions; fee applications; and motions to discharge the receiver. This requirement is often overlooked by federal receivers.

Where there is a significant creditor body in a district court receivership, the receiver should consider filing a motion limiting notice to the parties and those requesting notice. In the Southern District of California, Local Rule 66.1 requires notice to be given to “all interested parties”. Similarly, the Northern District of California requires notice be given to “all interested parties” (Local Rule 66-6). The Eastern District of California does not have any specific notice rules in receiverships other than that the receiver’s reports are to be served on “all parties” (Local Rule 66-232(e)).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.