The US Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") recently upheld the validity of a commercial lease provision by which a debtor/tenant waived its rights to seek relief from forfeiture (i.e., termination) of the lease under California law. As a result, the debtor/tenant had no right in the bankruptcy case to assume the lease. In re Art and Architecture Books of the 21st Century, Case No. 2:13-bk-14135-RK (September 18, 2014).
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on July 21, 2014, held that an indenture trustee’s late filing of senior claims did not waive the lenders’ contractual subordination rights, reversing the bankruptcy court. In re Franklin Bank Corporation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98327 (D. Del. July 21, 2014). Nor did the senior trustee’s late filing show inequitable conduct warranting equitable subordination of the tardily filed senior claims to timely filed junior claims.
Secured creditors naturally want to be repaid. Sometimes secured creditors go as far as asking a debtor to waive its right to seek bankruptcy protection. Although such clauses are frequently held to be unenforceable, we previously have discussed exceptions for LLCs.
The Bankruptcy Code impairs lenders’ rights in various ways. Accordingly, lenders have long attempted to devise methods of preventing borrowers from filing for bankruptcy protection. Such attempts generally have not been successful -- courts hold that as a general matter, a borrower’s pre bankruptcy waiver of the right to file bankruptcy is against public policy and is void. See, e.g., Klingman v. Levinson,831 F.2d 1292, 1296 n.3 (7th Cir.
The inclusion of pre-bankruptcy waivers in “standard issue” credit documents has generated a host of litigation in bankruptcy cases about the enforceability of such provisions.
Bankruptcy practitioners are anxiously awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will determine whether a party can waive its right to trial before an Article III tribunal.
Bankruptcy Court Holds Attorney's Signature on Proof of Claim Form Renders Attorney a Fact Witness to Allegations in Proof of Claim, Waiving Attorney-Client and Work-Product Privileges
The Ninth Circuit recently held that: (1) bankruptcy courts lack the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on all fraudulent transfer claims against non-claimants, whether brought under state or federal law, and (2) a defendant can waive such an argument by not asserting the applicability of Stern v. Marshall1 at the trial level.2 Further, in dicta, the court noted that bankruptcy courts may issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in matters in which the bankruptcy court cannot issue final orders.
Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors. In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case. Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bank
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Bethany Holdings Group, LLC, et al., 2011 WL 3427013, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT