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