Last April, we updated you that the Supreme Court had granted review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our most recent post is here.

Until recently, courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally followed the minority view that non-debtor releases in a bankruptcy plan are prohibited by Bankruptcy Code Section 524(e), which provides that the “discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt.” In the summer of 2020, the Ninth Circuit hinted that its prohibition against non-debtor releases was not absolute, when the court issued its decision in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.

A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision provides insight into “bad faith” claims-buying activity; specifically whether a creditor’s purchase of claims for the express purpose of blocking plan confirmation is permissible. In In re Fagerdala USA-Lompoc, Inc., the Court found it was—the secured creditor did not act in bad faith when it purchased a subset of all general unsecured claims and voted those claims against confirmation because it was acting to further its own economic interest as a creditor, without some extrinsic ulterior motive.

The Ninth Circuit in In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8729 (9th Cir. April 30, 2013) recently reversed precedent and established that bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit have the power to determine whether a transaction creates a debt or equity interest for purposes of § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joins the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Circuits in expressly recognizing bankruptcy courts’ ability to recharacterize claims in bankruptcy proceedings.

Clients often raise questions concerning the enforceability of arbitration clauses in bankruptcy proceedings. While this topic has been hotly debated for many years, a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 671 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2012), reminds us that arbitration clauses are not sacrosanct and can be struck down by the court.

Since it was issued three years ago by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the Clear Channel decision (Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008)) has been widely criticized as “an aberration in well-settled bankruptcy jurisprudence.” Before Clear Channel, conventional wisdom (and what most people perceived to be the law) supported the notion that a bankruptcy sale order that contained a good faith finding under Section 363(m) could not be disturbed on appeal.

The Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) recently upheld the disallowance of a credit union’s claims after the credit union’s “disgruntled employee” failed to file the proofs of claim before the claims bar date. 

The case of Spokane Law Enforcement Federal Credit Union v. Barker (In re Barker) serves as a cautionary tale—reminding creditors and their attorneys of the importance of timely filing proofs of claim.  

An Illinois appellate court, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy exclusion nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  Yessenow v. Exec. Risk Indem., Inc., 2011 WL 2623307 (Ill. App. Ct. June 30, 2011).

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division, applying Indiana and federal law, has held that neither a bankruptcy nor an insured versus insured exclusion applied to bar coverage for claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.  According to the court, the bankruptcy exclusion is unenforceable because coverage arises from a policy that is a property interest of the debtors, and that property interest is protected under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The insured versus insured exclusion did not apply, the court held, because the policyholder and a court-appointe

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, under California law, that an insurer had no duty to defend an insured actuarial services firm in litigation alleging that the insured’s reserve reviews and rate level recommendations contributed to the insolvency of a medical malpractice self-insurance fund. Zurich Specialties London Limited v. Bickerstaff, Whatley, Ryan & Burkhalter, Inc., 2011 WL 1118463 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2011).