2021-03-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980004

Home Browse Search

Case 1:20-bk-12043 Doc 621 Filed 02/24/21 Entered 02/24/21 14:52:42 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 40 extended where the failure to timely act "was the result of excusable neglect." 20. In Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brnnswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, the United States Supreme Court, taking note of"the language of the Rule and the evident purposes behind it," articulated the standard for what constitutes "excusable neglect" on an untimely filed Chapter 11 Proof of Claim. 507 U.S. 380,388 (1993). 21. The Court found that "Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the parry's control." 22. The Court contrasted a Chapter 11 claim with a Chapter 7 claim, finding that the aim of Chapter 11 is to "rehabilitate the debtor and avoid forfeitures by creditors," that the emphasis of the Court is not as much on prompt closure as with Chapter 7 claims, and that adopting a "flexible understanding" of excusable neglect is in full "accord with the policies underlying Chapter 11 and the Bankruptcy Rules." Id. at 389. 23. The Court adopted a four-part test for determining the existence of excusable neglect, noting (a) "the danger of prejudice to the debtor;" (b) "the length of the delay and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings;" (c) "the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant;" and (d) "whether the movant acted in good faith." Id. at 395. 24. The Court stressed, however that "the determination is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Id. See also Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341, 349-350 (3d Cir. 1995) (stressing that the totality of the circumstances must be examined in the excusable neglect inquiry). 25. Furthermore, all of the four factors must be considered and balanced; no one