Law Off of D.L. Drain P.A., Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer | "Helping You Get Your Life Back on Track"
Law Off of D.L. Drain P.A., Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer | "Helping You Get Your Life Back on Track"

Adversary vs Contested Matter – What is the Difference?

Adversary vs Contested Matter – What is the Difference?Diane Drain2024-10-17T06:29:13-07:00

CONTESTED MATTER V. ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

Understanding the Legal Distinctions: Contested Matters Versus Adversary Proceedings in Bankruptcy Law

The content delves into the legal nuances distinguishing “contested matters” from “adversary proceedings” within the realm of bankruptcy law, as explained by Doron Kenter from Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. A contested matter is depicted as a dispute or request for relief arising within the main framework of a bankruptcy case, governed by Rule 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In contrast, an adversary proceeding is characterized by the initiation of a separate legal action through the filing of a complaint, adhering to the procedural dictates of the “7000” series of the Bankruptcy Rules. The essence of this distinction lies in the nature and complexity of the legal issues involved, with certain types of disputes, such as those concerning the recovery of assets or determination of debt dischargeability, mandatorily requiring resolution through an adversary proceeding as stipulated in Rule 7001.

Further explored is the practical application of these distinctions through the lens of a case study, In re Gentile Family Industries. This segment illustrates the complexities and potential procedural ambiguities that can arise in bankruptcy proceedings, particularly when a contested matter veers into territory typically reserved for adversary proceedings. The appellate court’s decision in this case underscores a pragmatic approach to legal procedure in bankruptcy contexts, prioritizing substantive justice and the practicalities of the case over strict adherence to procedural formalities. This narrative conveys a critical message about the flexibility within bankruptcy proceedings, allowing for the adaptation of processes to suit the needs and fair treatment of all parties involved, without compromising the integrity or objectives of the legal system.

Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
Doron Kenter

August 26 2014

The difference between a contested matter and an adversary proceeding is relatively simple – a contested matter involves a contested request for relief in the context of the main bankruptcy proceeding (pursuant to Rule 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), while an adversary proceeding involves the filing of a complaint, commencing a separate proceeding governed by the “7000” series of the Bankruptcy Rules. What necessitates an adversary proceeding, and under what circumstances will a simple “contested matter” suffice? Strictly speaking, certain matters must be resolved in an adversary proceeding, rather than upon a motion in the main bankruptcy case. Such matters are listed in Rule 7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and include (but are not limited to) proceedings to:

  1. recover money or property (with certain exceptions);
  2. determine the validity, priority, or extent of a lien or other interest in property;
  3. object to or revoke a discharge;
  4. determine the dischargeability of a debt;
  5. obtain an injunction or other equitable relief, except when a chapter 9, chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13 plan provides for the relief;
  6. subordinate any allowed claim or interest, except when a chapter 9, chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13 plan provides for subordination;
  7. obtain a declaratory judgment relating to any of the foregoing.

This rule, however, may be subject to debate, and may be easily overlooked. But what if the relief being sought does not appear to implicate any of the proceedings referenced in Rule 7001, but objecting parties then raise questions that would be more properly resolved in an adversary proceeding? The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was one court to have faced this question recently.

In In re Gentile Family Industries, (chapter 11 bankruptcy, Central Dist. California, 8:13-bk-16402) the debtor moved to assume a (purportedly unexpired) lease, which was critical to its ongoing business. Diatom, LLC, the lessor and a major creditor of the debtor, opposed the motion, arguing that the lease was not assumable because it had not been renewed according to its terms and was instead simply a month-to-month lease. Central to the dispute was the question of whether the debtor had properly renewed the lease several years prior to commencing its bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court concluded that the lease had been properly renewed and that the debtor could therefore assume the lease. On appeal, Diatom argued that the judgment should be set aside because the dispute should not have been resolved through a contested matter, but instead through an adversary proceeding, including a complaint for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the lease.

Strictly speaking, Diatom may have been correct (the appellate panel did not conclusively decide whether the debtor should have commenced an adversary proceeding in the first instance). However, notwithstanding the fact that the contested matter involved questions regarding the validity of the lease, the appellate panel concluded that the error (if there was one) was harmless and did not warrant reversal. Quoting its previous decision in Ruvacalba v. Munoz (In re Munoz), the appellate panel held that even though it may be error to treat that which should be subject to adversary proceeding as a contested matter, “[s]uch an error may nevertheless be harmless when the record of the procedurally incorrect ‘contested matter’ is developed to a sufficient degree that the record of an adversary proceeding likely would not have been materially different for certain contested matter which should have been brought as an adversary proceeding.” In Gentile Family Industries, the parties had “ample time to air their positions” after a full opportunity to brief the issues and to introduce evidence in support of their respective positions. Indeed, the court observed that “for all practical purposes an adversary proceeding was held in this case.” Because Diatom could not show that it had been procedurally disadvantaged by the bankruptcy court’s approach to the dispute, the appellate panel saw no need to disturb the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, the debtor could assume the unexpired lease.

Gentile Family Industries and other similar cases point to the principle that form will not be elevated over substance in bankruptcy proceedings, so long as no parties are procedurally disadvantaged. But this case does point to a key question – what should be the result where an objecting party in a contested matter raises questions that would warrant the commencement of an adversary proceeding by the debtor? In the course of a contested matter, it is certainly possible that, as in Gentile Family Industries, an objecting party might introduce an issue that could, in turn, require the debtor to commence an action for a declaratory judgment, or to determine the nature, extent, and validity of lien. If the matter is simply treated as a contested matter in the case, a host of risks may arise, including, for example:

  1. The defendant(s) would not have an opportunity to move to dismiss the complaint without further evidentiary proceedings (potentially including discovery and other litigation expenses);
  2. The defendant(s) would not be able to file counterclaims against the debtor in the context of the contested matter, and would not be able to assert all of the defenses and objections that may be raised in an adversary proceeding;
  3. The default deadlines and other procedural requirements for adversary proceedings would not apply;
  4. Many of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that are otherwise applicable to adversary proceedings would not apply, nor would the specific Bankruptcy Rules set forth for adversary proceedings; and
  5. The court’s docket in the main bankruptcy case could become cluttered with discovery disputes and other procedural motions that implicate a dispute between a small subset of parties.

Of course, parties in interest and bankruptcy courts would be well-advised to consider the practical differences between an adversary proceeding and a contested matter in determining their course of action. But many of these distinctions may be immaterial – particularly in straightforward disputes between parties in interest in a bankruptcy case. Moreover, bankruptcy courts may conduct contested matters much the same way as an adversary proceeding would play out (indeed, Bankruptcy Rule 9014(c) provides that many of the “7000 series” of rules also apply to contested matters). If there is no material difference or disadvantage to any parties, it might simply be a waste of resources to put form over substance in differentiating between these two (frequently similar) types of proceedings.

No – see In Re Menk, 241 B.R. 896 (9th cir bap 1999)

statute of Lady Justice

Bankruptcy Case Law & Notes

For more information about bankruptcy law,  please visit the link below  “Bankruptcy Case Law”.

More About Bankruptcy

Looking for more information about bankruptcy? Visit our Bankruptcy Articles & Links section for more information about bankruptcy

Share this page with others!

  • What are the Basic Bankruptcy Principles? Bankruptcy is a legal process that helps people and businesses overwhelmed by debt get a financial ‘start fresh’. The principles of discharge, disclosure, and due process are key to [...]

  • Bankruptcy is a complex process that can have significant implications for your business and personal finances. Before considering business bankruptcy as an option for your struggling business, it's crucial to understand the potential pitfalls [...]

  • All Attorneys Must Return Client Calls, Even Flat-Fee Attorneys Attorneys are required to return client calls and respond to client's concerns, even flat-fee attorneys. In a recent bankruptcy case, In re: [...]

Go to Top