Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Midland Cogeneration Venture L.P. v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp.)

Midland Cogeneration Venture L.P. v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp.)

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

April 1, 2005, Argued ; August 16, 2005, Decided

Docket No. 04-3251-bk

Opinion

 [*118]  SACK, Circuit Judge:

This appeal, spawned by what would appear to be one of the largest and most complex bankruptcy proceedings in American history, presents the question whether the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Arthur J. Gonzalez, Judge) abused its discretion by denying a creditor's motion either to amend its timely filed proof of claim against a debtor to include the debtor's parent corporation, or to file a new proof of claim against the parent corporation, six months after the expiration of the court-imposed "bar date" for filing claims. In rejecting the motion, the bankruptcy court -- applying the test for "excusable neglect" set forth by the United States Supreme Court in  Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates L.P., 507 U.S. 380, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74, 113 S. Ct. 1489 (1993) [**3]   -- cited the substantial length of the delay, the lack of a "genuine reason" for the late filing, and the potential prejudice to the reorganization proceedings from the possible opening of the "floodgates" to similar late claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alvin K. Hellerstein, Judge) affirmed the order, concluding that "the purpose of a bar date has to be given great deference." Hearing Tr. at 16, In re Enron Corp. Corp., No. 03 Civ. 9319 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2004) ("May 19, 2004, Hearing Tr.").

We affirm because we agree with the district court that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its considerable discretion in finding that the creditor's neglect in this case was not excusable, especially in light of the complexity of the reorganization the court was overseeing.

BACKGROUND 

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

419 F.3d 115 *; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17237 **; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P80,338; 45 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 45

In Re: Enron Corp. MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. ENRON CORP., Appellee, THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, Movant.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Errata Filed: September 9, 2005.

Prior History: Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alvin K. Hellerstein, Judge) affirming an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Arthur J. Gonzalez, Judge) denying creditor's motion for leave to amend its timely filed proof of claim against debtor to include debtor's parent corporation, or to file a new proof of claim, six months after the expiration of the court-imposed "bar date" for filing claims. Creditor contends, inter alia, that its belated filing was the result of "excusable neglect," and that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by not permitting the filing under the test set forth in  Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates L.P., 507 U.S. 380, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74, 113 S. Ct. 1489 (1993).

 In re Enron Corp., 298 B.R. 513, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1156 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2003)

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

bankruptcy court, proof of claim, excusable neglect, notice, late-filed, reorganization plan, district court, reorganization, factors, courts, entity, Guaranty, amend, late claim, inadvertence, subsidiaries, proceedings, equitable, deadline, neglect, timely file, negotiations, disruption, cases, late filing, floodgates, quotation, abused, marks, weigh

Bankruptcy Law, Claims, Proof of Claim, Effects & Procedures, Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Clear Error Review, Civil Procedure, Appeals, De Novo Review, Procedural Matters, General Overview, De Novo Standard of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Abuse of Discretion, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review, Energy & Utilities Law, Pipelines & Transportation, Eminent Domain Proceedings, Adversary Proceedings, Commencement of Adversary Proceedings, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Relation Back