600 B.R. 739
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Debtor Lee A. Bressler filed Chapter 7 on October 12, 2018; Carbon Investment Partners and Carbon Master Fund ("Carbon") had pending arbitration and district-court claims for fraud and fiduciary breach against Bressler prepetition.
- Clerk originally set the §341 meeting for November 16, 2018 (first date set); the meeting was adjourned and actually held December 7, 2018; the clerk’s notice listed January 15, 2019 as the 60‑day objection deadline.
- Carbon sought to extend the deadline on February 4, 2019, arguing the 60‑day period should run from the date the §341 meeting was held (February 5, 2019) and also relying on an alleged oral stipulation with debtor’s counsel.
- Debtor’s counsel admits to an oral agreement but denies filing or approving a court stipulation before the deadline; trustee’s separate extension to May 15, 2019 remained in effect.
- The court held the 4004/4007 deadlines run from the first date set for the §341 meeting (even if adjourned), that oral agreements without timely court filings cannot extend that deadline, and that equitable tolling was not warranted on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 60‑day deadline to file adversary complaints under Rules 4004/4007 run? | Carbon: 60 days after the §341 meeting actually held. | Bressler: 60 days after the first date set for the §341 meeting (per notice). | Runs from the first date set for the §341 meeting; Carbon’s deadline expired Jan. 15, 2019. |
| Can an oral stipulation between counsel extend the deadline after it expires? | Carbon: oral agreement with debtor’s counsel is binding; equitable estoppel or enforcement should permit extension. | Bressler: any extension required court approval before the deadline; oral promise insufficient. | Oral agreement without court‑approved stipulation is ineffective to extend the deadline. |
| May the court equitably toll or extend the deadline because of debtor misconduct or discovery impediments? | Carbon: debtor’s alleged discovery misconduct, vague §341 responses, and arbitration discovery abuses justify tolling/extension. | Bressler: no extraordinary concealment; Carbon had prior knowledge of claims and could have timely sought relief. | Equitable tolling/extension not warranted on these facts; Carbon must pursue Rule 4004(b)(2) if newly discovered facts support revocation grounds. |
| Is relief available to Carbon despite untimely motion? | Carbon: asks denial be excused or deadline extended to align with trustee’s May 15 date. | Bressler: denial appropriate; trustee retains separate right to object. | Motion to extend denied without prejudice; trustee may still seek §727 relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U.S. 638 (1992) (bankruptcy‑rule deadlines are strict and produce finality)
- In re Maughan, 340 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling upheld where debtor repeatedly failed to produce court‑ordered discovery)
- Kelly v. Gordon (In re Gordon), 988 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1993) (majority view: deadline runs from first date set for §341 meeting)
- In re Datson, 197 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 1996) (creditor must move for extension before expiration of deadline)