Skip to main content

Rule 9006(b)(1)

In re Renegade Holdings Inc.

Ruling
Knowing, strategic decision by creditor not to file proof of claim was not excusable neglect that would allow for a late filing.
Procedural posture

A corporation moved to be allowed to file a claim after the expiration of the deadline for filing claims.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Renegade Holdings Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on August 19, 2011 , LexisNexis #0911-135

Jones v. Brown (In re Brown)

Ruling
Creditor's failure to meet filing deadline for adversary proceeding because of calendar error was not due to excusable neglect.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Jones v. Brown (In re Brown) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 17, 2011 , LexisNexis #0311-067

In re Pilgrims Pride Corp.

Ruling
Late-filed administrative expense claim allowed due to creditors' lack of sophistication, good faith and no likely material adverse affect on administration.
Procedural posture

A married couple, asked the court to allow a late filing of an administrative claim in chapter 11 proceedings of debtor, the husband's employer. The motion was precipitated by a filing, by debtor, of a suggestion of bankruptcy and a motion to dismiss claims against it in an arbitration proceeding regarding injuries suffered by the husband in a mishap claimed by movants to have been related to the husband's status as an employee.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Pilgrims Pride Corp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on February 08, 2011 , LexisNexis #0311-101

In re Victory Mem. Hosp.

Ruling
"Unknown" creditor had constructive notice of bar date and could not file late proof of claim.
Procedural posture

This matter came before the court on a motion of the Administratrix of an Estate (claimant) for leave under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) to file a late proof of claim for $4.9 million against debtor. Debtor and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors opposed the motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Victory Mem. Hosp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on August 12, 2010 , LexisNexis #0910-031

In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.

Ruling
Creditors who did not file timely proofs of claim due to ordinary negligence were not entitled to enlargement of bar date.
Procedural posture

Movants, seven individual creditors, each of whom missed the bar date for filing claims against the debtor, sought relief in the form of enlargement of the bar date order under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1), due to excusable neglect.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on May 20, 2010 , LexisNexis #0710-101

In re Schuster

Ruling
Enlargement of time for debtor to file proof of claim on behalf of creditor denied absent excusable neglect.
Procedural posture

Debtor filed a petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and after the deadline the court set for creditors to file proofs of claim had passed, the debtor filed a motion for enlargement of time in which to file a proof of claim on behalf of a creditor. A trustee who was appointed to administer the debtor's bankruptcy estate filed an objection to the debtor's motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Schuster Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 12, 2010 , LexisNexis #0710-068

In re Gutschow

Ruling
Isolated calendaring error by creditor's counsel was excusable neglect allowing to late filing of proof of claim.
Procedural posture

A judgment creditor filed a motion for leave to file a proof of claim in a chapter 11 debtor's case out of time pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1). Another creditor objected.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Gutschow Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on April 19, 2010 , LexisNexis #0710-067

In re Peninsular Oil Corp.

Ruling
Creditor's preoccupation with business affairs was not excusable neglect that would allow filing of proof of claim two years after bar date.
Procedural posture

A claimant filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1) to allow a late-filed proof of claim in a chapter 11 debtor's case. The claimant also filed a motion for a stay pending reconsideration, and a motion for reconsideration, of a court order, which approved the sale of certain of the debtor's assets, the proposed distribution of the proceeds to holders of allowed claims, and the discharge and release of the debtor's managing agent.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Peninsular Oil Corp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on October 27, 2008 , LexisNexis #0209-140

In re Ginther

Ruling
Proof of claim filed seven minutes after midnight expiration of bar date allowed due to excusable neglect.
Procedural posture

A creditor filed a second amended motion for leave to file an untimely and amended proof of claim in a debtor's chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Ginther Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 05, 2008 , LexisNexis #0708-057

Department of Treasury IRS v. Seivers (In re Seivers)

Ruling
IRS not entitled to extension of bar date in absence of excusable neglect.
Procedural posture

Movant IRS filed a motion for an extension of the bar date nunc pro tunc on the basis that its failure to timely file its proof of claim in the chapter 11 debtor's case was due to excusable neglect, within the meaning of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Department of Treasury IRS v. Seivers (In re Seivers) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on November 29, 2007 , LexisNexis #1207-140