New century liquidating trust agreement

Rated 3.84/5 based on 589 customer reviews

When deciding whether a party's neglect of a deadline was "excusable," the Pioneer Court held that the determination was "an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission." Id. The Pioneer Court then listed four factors for consideration: (i) the danger of prejudice to the debtor; (ii) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (iii) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (iv) whether the movant acted in good faith. "All factors must be considered and balanced; no one factor trumps the others." Hefta v. Of Unsecured Creditors (In re American Classic Voyages Co.), 405 F.3d 127, 133 (3d Cir.

No supporting documentation was attached to the Russell Claim. "Even when notice satisfies constitutional requirements, a creditor who does not receive actual notice — or who receives it but for some reason does not timely act upon it — may seek leave to file a late claim based on `excusable neglect.'" In re U. Earlier in the Debtors' bankruptcy case, I noted that allowance of late-filed claims might open the floodgates to filings of similar claims: As the Court is already aware from this and other similar matters now before it in the New Century case, allowance of late-filed claims in this case unquestionably will open a floodgate to similar claims by other borrowers. At the evidentiary hearing, the Trustee testified that the continuous filing of late claims prejudices the Trust by adding administrative costs and causing significant delay to wind-up the estate. Russell argues that the tardy filing of her proof of claim was due to excusable neglect. Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) provides in relevant part: [W]hen an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified period by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if the request therefore is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) on motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.

Leave a Reply