472 B.R. 257
Bankr. D. Del.2012Background
- Trust moves to classify Gibson's proof of claim as tardily-filed and subordinated under the Plan.
- Gibson contends she did not receive notice of Freedom's bankruptcy or the claims bar date.
- Freedom mailed notices to Gibson's last-known address, which contained a typographical error.
- Gibson filed a timely proof of claim within the 30-day window; the Plan defines subordinated claims to include tardily filed claims.
- Court previously considered whether notice was adequate and reserved ruling on subordination; later record shows Gibson received adequate notice and claim is tardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Gibson properly noticed regarding the bankruptcy and bar date? | Gibson did not receive notice. | Notice was reasonably calculated to reach Gibson at the last-known address. | Yes; notice satisfied Mullane standard and Gibson's claim is tardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice must be reasonably calculated to notify interested parties)
- Chemetron Corp. v. Jones (Chemetron I), 72 F.3d 341 (3d Cir. 1995) (standard for notice in bankruptcy bar-date contexts)
- Chemetron Corp. v. Jones (Chemetron II), 212 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2000) (refined application of notice and discharge principles in plan confirmations)
- In re Kendavis Holding Co., 249 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2001) (courts assess notice sufficiency against facts of each case)
- In re Grand Union Co., 204 B.R. 864 (Bankr. D. Del. 1997) (presumption of receipt when properly mailed; denial of receipt requires evidence)
- Tulsa Professional Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (1988) (mail service is reasonably calculated to provide actual notice)
- City of New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293 (1953) (due process requires notice in proceedings affecting rights)