Law School Case Brief
Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship - 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct. 1489 (1993)
The determination as to what sorts of neglect will be considered "excusable" is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission. These include the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.
As unsecured creditors of petitioner debtor, a company seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, respondents were required to file proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court before the deadline, or bar date, established by that court. An August 3, 1989, bar date was included in a "Notice for Meeting of Creditors" received from the court by Mark Berlin, an official for respondents. Respondents' attorney was provided with a complete copy of the case file and, when asked, assertedly assured Berlin that no bar date had been set. On August 23, 1989, respondents asked the court to accept their proofs under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1), which allows a court to permit late filings where the movant's failure to comply with the deadline "was the result of excusable neglect." The court refused, holding that a party may claim excusable neglect only if the failure to timely perform was due to circumstances beyond its reasonable control. The District Court remanded the case, ordering the Bankruptcy Court to evaluate respondents' conduct under a more liberal standard. The Bankruptcy Court applied that standard and again denied the motion, finding that several factors, including the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, and whether the creditor acted in good faith, favored respondent creditors; however, the delay was within their control and that they should be penalized for their counsel's mistake. The District Court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed. It found that the Bankruptcy Court had inappropriately penalized respondents for their counsel's error, since Berlin had asked the attorney about the impending deadlines and since the peculiar and inconspicuous placement of the bar date in the notice for a creditors' meeting without any indication of the date's significance left a dramatic ambiguity in the notification that would have confused even a person experienced in bankruptcy. Certiorari review was granted.
Did the appellate court err in holding that an attorney's inadvertent failure to file a proof of claim for the creditors within a deadline set by a bankruptcy court could constitute "excusable neglect" within the meaning of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1)?
The United States Supreme Court concluded that the determination of what type of neglect would be considered "excusable" was an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding a party's omission. These included the danger of prejudice to a debtor, the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of movant, and whether movant acted in good faith. Although the appellate court erred in not attributing to creditors the fault of their attorney, its decision was still correct. The lack of any prejudice to debtor or to the interests of efficient judicial administration, combined with the good faith of the creditors and their attorney, weighed strongly in favor of permitting the tardy claim. Further, the bankruptcy court's unusual form of notice required a finding that the neglect of the creditors' counsel was "excusable."
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class