In re AMR Corp.
492 B.R. 660
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Debtors filed Chapter 11 petitions on Nov. 29, 2011 and established a July 16, 2012 bar date for proofs of claim (Bar Date).
- Katz Technology Licensing asserts it did not receive actual notice of the Bar Date and seeks to have its late claim deemed timely or, alternatively, excused as neglect.
- Bar Date notice and form were served on Cooley LLP, addressed to Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L.P. at a specific Reston, Virginia address.
- Katz did not receive mail notice per several affidavits; it first learned of the Bar Date in Oct. 2012 and filed a late claim on Oct. 26–27, 2012 (claim #13293).
- Katz seeks at least $36,449,123 based on patent infringement litigation against American Airlines, stayed in the bankruptcy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Katz had actual notice of the Bar Date. | Katz lacked actual notice; affidavits show no receipt. | Notice was mailed to a proper address and presumptively received. | Katz had actual notice; motion denied. |
| Whether Katz can invoke excusable neglect under Rule 9006(b)(1). | Delay was excusable due to lack of notice. | Delay not excusable; notice was available and docket monitoring was required. | Pioneer factors not satisfied; excusable neglect not shown. |
| Whether the proof of mailing creates a rebuttable presumption of receipt and whether Katz rebutted it. | Non-receipt affidavits rebut the presumption of receipt. | Mailing was properly executed; affidavits are insufficient to rebut presumption. | Presumption of receipt stands; no rebuttal shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Best Prods. Co., Inc., 140 B.R. 353 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1992) (bar date serves to organize estate administration)
- Fidelity Bank, N.A. v. Hooker Investments, Inc. (In re Hooker Investments, Inc.), 937 F.2d 833 (2d Cir.1991) (bar date enforceability when creditor is known)
- City of New York v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1953) (due process requires known creditors receive notice)
- In re R.H. Macy & Co., Inc., 161 B.R. 355 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1993) (presumption of receipt from mailing; rebuttal standards)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process notice standards (affects bar dates))
- Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir.2012) (public policy arguments in procedural rulings)
- In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.2005) (Pioneer excusable neglect framework and hard-line approach)
- In re Johns-Manville Corp., 476 F.3d 118 (2d Cir.2007) (strict Pioneer test applied to excusable neglect)
- American Casualty Co. v. Nordic Leasing, Inc., 42 F.3d 725 (2d Cir.1994) (material fact issues when conflicting sworn statements exist)
- In re U.S. Home Corp., 223 B.R. 654 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1998) (preservation of bar date absent listed creditors)