In the Matter Of: Kmart Corporation, Debtors-Appellees, Appeal Of: Wilhemina Simmons

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that this factor was “inconclusive” where claimant waited until the “eleventh hour” to file proof of claim and failed to act diligently after filing
• upholding the bankruptcy court’s determination that claimant’s two- and-a-half month delay in filing motion for leave to file late proof of claim favored the debtor
• upholding finding of prejudice where late-filed claim was $750,000 out of $6 billion total unsecured claims
• finding mail clerk’s selection of second-day delivery rather than next-day delivery not excusable neglect because delay was entirely within creditor’s control
• affirming the disallowance of a late-filed claim notwithstanding the fact that the debtor was “on full notice of [the creditor’s] claim and could have easily taken it into account when it drafted its reorganization plan”
• noting that the bankruptcy court was “well within its province” to consider the creditor’s eighty-one day delay in requesting judicial relief under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006 rather than the fact that the proof of claim itself was only filed one day past the bar date

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).