Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

When is a claim contingent? When is a claim subject to a bona fide dispute and who has the burden of proof? When is a claim against a person? When is a claim too small to count? When is an alleged debtor generally not paying his debts as they come due? Are we there yet?

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

As we previously reported here at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog, in Burberry Limited and Burberry USA v.

At issue in In re Legacy Corp.was the right to allowance and payment as an administrative expense of the professional fees and expenses of the Movant, a holder of a prepetition gift card claim against the Debtors, for his involvement in the resolution and settlement of prepetition gift card holder claims.

In February 2016, Energy Future Holdings Corp. (“EF”), which obtained confirmation of a chapter 11 plan on December 3, 2015, prevailed at the district court level in related appeals brought by first- and second-lien noteholders of bankruptcy court orders disallowing the noteholders’ claims for make-whole premiums allegedly due under their note indentures. The forum in this hotly contested and long-running dispute has now moved to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Enforceability of Make-Whole Premiums in Bankruptcy

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Debtor: Pro Se

Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code acts as the Bankruptcy Code’s equitable backstop, empowering bankruptcy courts to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out [its] provisions” and to, “sua sponte, take[e] any action or mak[e] any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.” Does section 105(a), though, authorize

Practitioners that exclusively represent clients in large scale restructurings and chapter 11 reorganizations may be used to the debtor remaining in place with senior management continuing to oversee the day to day operations of the company and overseeing the debtor’s reorganization case.  It may seem strange then to such practitioners that, unlike in chapter 11 cases, the debtor in a chapter 7 case often has only a limited role in its own bankruptcy case after the initial debtor interview and the section 341 meeting of creditors.  In a chapter 7 case, a trustee is appointed and i