An opinion issued yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reiterates the importance of filing written objections and appearing in the Bankruptcy Court to preserve rights to appeal. The opinion clarifies the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion on this issue, which we covered in a recent blog post. In Reid and Hellyer, APC v. Laski (In re Wrightwood Guest Ranch, LLC), No. 16-56856, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-07168-MFW, the Ninth Circuit considered an appeal of an order issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California that approved a settlement between a chapter 11 trustee and a secured creditor.
In August 2015, an involuntary petition was filed against the Debtor, Wrightwood Guest Ranch, LLC (the “Debtor”) and a trustee was appointed. The Trustee elected to settle a $9.6 million claim secured by the estate’s principal asset, a large piece of real estate, by allowing an affiliate of the secured creditor to purchase the property for $8.5 million and having the secured creditor limit its claim to that amount and also carve out funds for estate professionals, expenses and unsecured creditors.
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) and an individual creditor filed written objections to the proposed settlement. The Debtor’s counsel and the Committee’s counsel (the “Administrative Claimants”) did not file any written objections on behalf of themselves despite that they had administrative claims in the case.
The bankruptcy court held a hearing on the sale of the property and the settlement and attorneys from the law firms representing the Committee and the Debtor appeared on behalf of the Committee and the Debtor, respectively. Neither Administrative Claimant stated during the hearing that it was appearing on its own behalf. The Bankruptcy Court granted the sale motion and approved the settlement under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019.
Thereafter, Administrative Claimants both filed appeals of the settlement order. The District Court for the Central District of California consolidated the appeals and the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeals claiming that neither Administrative Claimant / appellant had standing to appeal because neither, in its own capacity, objected to the settlement or appeared at the hearing. The District Court agreed and dismissed the appeals.
In their appeals to the Ninth Circuit, the Administrative Claimants / appellants argued that despite their failure to “explicitly object” below, the Bankruptcy Court and Trustee were aware of their positions and their intent to object on their own behalves. The Ninth Circuit noted its recent decision in In re Point Center Fin., Inc. wherein the Ninth Circuit “clarified that attendance and objection are not prudential standing requirements in bankruptcy cases, but rather relate to whether a party has waived or forfeited its right to appeal a given order of the bankruptcy court.” Wrightwood, at 8.
Here, the Court found that “the law firms have forfeited their claims regarding the propriety of the settlement order because neither firm attended the hearing or objected to the settlement in its own capacity.” Id. at 9. The Ninth Circuit further explained its Point Center ruling – “[t]here, although the appellants did not file a written objection or attend the hearing, they quickly realized the error and ‘filed a motion to reconsider with the bankruptcy court before it had issued a written order on the motion,’ which the bankruptcy court considered and rejected on the merits.'” Id. at 10 (citing Point Center). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgement of the District Court.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Wrightwood is a good reminder – “When a party has not objected to an order in writing and the record contains no explicit indication that a party meant to object, a party has normally failed to preserve its objection to that order.” Id. at 16.
[View source.]
