*1 concerning plan ap- confirmation of a and

pellees’ treatment thereunder. Our ruling

on the issue tendered would not be respon-

sive to dispute the actual cir- the parties appeal.

cumstances of to this We hold that events and circumstances subsequent occurring on are consistent with reinstating temporary stay 11 U.S.C. 362. § Therefore, lifting the order 362 stay is VACATED and this matter is REMAND-

ED to the court so that pro-

ceedings may expeditiously brought on for hearing considering provision

adequate protection by appellant appel- lee, pending the confirmation of a plan of

reorganization otherwise. HUGHES, Bankruptcy Judge, dissenting.

I agree has been ren- dered moot post-appeal stance, particularly with to the respect pur- Arnold Kupetz, L. Sulmeyer, Kupetz, gative plan. effect of the debtor’s Rothman, Baumann remedy for mootness should be dismissal of for appellant. the appeal, not reversal. P.C., Beach, M. Lytle, Hermosa

Cal., for appellee.

OPINION GEORGE, ABRAHAMS, HUGHES, Bankruptcy Judges. GEORGE, Bankruptcy Judge: Gary NELMS,

In re Robert d/b/a KUPETZ, Realty, ARNOLD L. the Trustee a/d/b/a Sun Financial case, Services, above-entitled an appealed Debtor. of the bankruptcy court BAP No. CC-82-1407-GAbH. number of unsecured creditors to file United States Appellate Panels their respective proofs of Although claim. of the Ninth Circuit. we conclude that the lower order of improvidently we vacate granted, March Argued 1983. that order prejudice without Decided Feb. of those unsecured creditors who filed dur- period. the extension

L BACKGROUND Little background is contained proceeding, actual trial record of this Nevertheless, purposes clarity only, provided shall use the statements of fact by counsel: *2 against Mr. proceedings in the allowed claims involved The creditors formalizing were investors in An this estate. Nelms’ underlying arrangements used financing the separate by two was entered agreement consequently NELMS, to debtor, GARY court, the ROBERT that by specifically provided which trial One of business. his real estate capitalize of claim in proofs these creditors should file methods, to as the referred financing these debtor’s case. the the upon relied program, “Sun Satellite” meantime, case had the debtor’s In the to invest partnerships formation of limited Chapter Chapter from 11 to been converted offices. in a number of the debtor’s hearing, Notice of 7. In the Order Financial as program, second known “Sun 341(a) hearing the which scheduled section of Services,” of deeds involved the sale 10, 1982, for March in that converted case investors. prospective trust to need to were informed of the all creditors the the administration During course of after of claim within six months proof file a estate, trustee claimed of the debtor’s the hearing the date. the of trust held that of deeds notices, as the Notwithstanding these his case the debtor at commencement 10,1982 claim-filing deadline be- September The trus- property the of his estate. imminent, Lytle apprised Mr. came therefore, claims of the tee, objected to the creditors, hav- significant that a number an inter- Financial creditors to Sun Services Fi- ing both Satellite and settled Sun Sun object- in those trust He further est deeds. claims, the were still unaware of nancial the alleged by the claimed ed to interests with the bank- proofs need to file of claim in the various partners Sun Satellite limited week- During Day court. the Labor ruptcy partnerships’ assets. end, immediately preceding filing the dead- position, the with contesting Trustee’s line, sub- Lytle Mr. and his staff made a Financial respect to the claims of the Sun creditors of stantial effort inform these investors, Esq. M. Lytle, Mr. Services claim Neverthe- proof requirement. the seek- persons a number of represented less, discovered a deal of confu- they great court, bankruptcy a class ing, by action surrounding the investors’ sion the by notes held to recover several of the by alleged representations tions which by debtor and three banks handled trustee, others. Lytle, Mr. pre-petition business affairs. debtor’s ren- Lytle Mr. felt that this confusion had also Lytle approached Mr. respond- these creditors incapable dered investors, he but Sun Satellite fashion, timely in a to the notices ing, to render his services. Due declined them He, and of the the court trustee. party, a third representations by to certain of time for parte moved ex an extension alleged it is some of the that Sun of claim in the instant creditors were misled into believ- Satellite Lytle Mr. representing would be motion, at Following a on this hearing bankruptcy their interests court. before the the trustee’s was also in at- counsel counsel for refusal to act as tendance, granted bankruptcy investors, Lytle Mr. did Sun Satellite extension creditors list- thirty-day to those attempt notify these creditors of having as Satel- ed need to of claim investors lite or Sun Financial partners nonetheless, estate. question, Nelms Some followed with settled claims. This Satel- exists as whether of that order. of this actual notice lite creditors received advice. THE FACTS II. ANALYSIS OF that, if stipulated Eventually, AND THE LAW credi- of the Sun Financial Services

certain order was alleged abandon their interests When tors would trust, matter, in this they in the debtor’s deeds of would entered governed by Bankruptcy of claim was from the loss saved of their aas mandates of equity, merely matter upon represen- claim must be filed within of Mr. Lytle concerning “[a] tations the general after the months first date set the first plight group of creditors. While ...,” of creditors to cer- meeting prompt comprehensive solutions are exceptions tain relevant the present goals bankruptcy system cluded *3 the narrow used language litigation and piecemeal is seldom conducive predecessor statute, and in rule its both solutions, to prompt equity must be applied differing have to been case-by-case on a basis prevent to its mis- tions over the In re years. Compare Pigott, use. (3d Cir.1982) 684 (inability F.2d 239 of cred- case-by-ease In to such a order use meth- itors’ counsel to return to office in the wake od, agree we with the trustee the more of the Three-Mile Island evacuation not suf- time to have appropriate examined late- ground ficient to excuse the late filed of claim would have been when claim); In re Vandergrift, 341 objections to their allowance. (3d Cir.1965) curiam), (per F.2d 921 affirm- Therefore, although the trial court’s order (W.D.Pa.1964); re F.Supp. 232 857 In broad, we being overly must be vacated Co., Manufacturing (3d Mellen 287 F.2d 37 need, time, see require no at this to a dis- Cir.1961) (the latter two cases relied upon after'September missal those claims filed Act, section 57n of 11 Bankruptcy former 10,. Rather, anticipate we 93(n) (1976), to preclude U.S.C. allow will pursue objections to -each claims) ance of late-filed with In re H. C.& claim, ostensibly late-filed on an individual Co., Inc., (W.D.Tenn. Table 457 F.Supp. 858 basis. Comac, 1978); Matter of 43 F.Supp. 402 (E.D.Mich.1975); In re & Byrnes, Sieban F.Supp. (S.D.N.Y.1968) (fol 315 III. CONCLUSION Litton, lowing dicta in Pepper U.S. We conclude that order 11, 238, 304-305 n. 60 S.Ct. n. 244-245 extending to (1939), 84 L.Ed. 281 to the late permit claim for the Satellite and Finan- claims).

filing of cial im- creditors with settled rule, time, We not at do on the We, providently granted. REV- cases; relative merits of the above-cited in- that order without ERSE VACATE that, simply very stead we conclude at the prejudice to the claims of the creditors least, equitable powers bankrupt- objecting any volved or to the trustee in to cy court should have applied not so or all of those claims. as was broadly permitted by the trial particular, order. note the HUGHES, Bankruptcy Judge, concur- examination,

lack of detailed ring. below, reasons for the I to judgment concur reverse late of each creditor’s claim or claims. appealed. This weakness in the proceedings below seems to lie at the heart of both Trus- The is from an order complaint concerning tee’s standing the date class all of the Sun Satel- es- creditors could file claims lite and excluded creditors and the Trus- tate. The order violated the then relevant tee’s objections actual merits of the 302(e) rules. lower court’s order. enumerated the circumstances under which such an order was authorized.

Taking regard no None differing fac- those circumstances existed in this case. notice, reliance, tors of degree of education Furthermore, Bankruptcy express- Rule 906 experience, forth, so affecting (or inaction) ly actions limited the court’s discretion extend each of these credi- tors, “ex- permitted the trial court time file claims under Rule under the

cept to the extent and conditions 302(e). thus stated in” and an abuse of discretion. erroneous question This does untimely may of whether an filed claim be allowed. nevertheless *4 RUBIN, & re Tom dba Tom Rubin Associates, Debtor. RUBIN, Tom Tom dba Rubin &

Associates, Appellant, BELO BROADCASTING CORPORA TV;

TION, dba WFAA Cox Broadcast ing Corporation, TV; dba WSB WIIC Inc., subsidiary

TV, wholly owned Corporation; Broadcasting King Cox Broadcasting Company, King AM; dba Broadcasting Corporation,

Miami dba KTVU; Gaylord Broadcasting, dba Inc.,

KSTW; Broadcasting, Fisher dba TV; Broadcasting, Hubbard KOMO KSTP; Indiana, Inc., Teleco dba Television; Gaylord WTTV Broad dba casting Company Ohio, dba WUAB

TV, Appellees. LA No. 81-01874-JM.

BAP 82-1299-VHG. No. CC Bankruptcy Appellate United States Panels Circuit. of the Ninth 29, 1984. Feb. Wolas, Drushal,

Herbert D. Rob- Stephen Cal., inson, Diamant, Angeles, & Los Wolas appellant. Slate, Gendel, Roskoff, Shapiro Daniel H. Quittner, for appellees. VOLINN, HUGHES GEORGE, Bankruptcy Judges.