RECENT CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY OPINIONS (2014)

Issue: Order was entered by the Bankruptcy Court, enforcing discharge injunction against parties who were allegedly injured as result of their exposure to disease-causing chemical distributed by Chapter 11 debtor, and parties appealed on ground that they had not received sufficient notice of need to file proofs of claim to satisfy their due process rights.

Holding: Notice of claims bar date that Chapter 11 debtor caused to be published in local newspaper, advising anyone who read notice of fact that debtor had sold throughout the United States a disease-causing chemical used by companies to make butter flavoring, and that debtor had sold chemical to the specific company for which claimants worked, and if any person sustained injury as result of being exposed to this chemical, even if that injury only became apparent in future, he or she would need to file claim prior to expiration of claims bar date or risk having that claim forever barred, was sufficient to satisfy due process rights of claimants and to alert them of need to file proofs of claim, even if injuries that they sustained from exposure to chemical had not yet manifested themselves; accordingly, enforcement of discharge injunction against claimants, who had failed to file any proofs of claim, did not violate due process.

vi. In re Northern New England Telephone Operations, LLC, 504 B.R. 372 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2014).

Issue: Whether city that had not filed proof of claim prior to expiration of applicable bar date was entitled to allowance and payment of its tax claims on "excusable neglect."

Holding: City was not entitled to file untimely proof of claim on "excusable neglect" theory, three-and-a-half years after governmental bar date had passed and nearly three years after Chapter 11 plan had been confirmed, notwithstanding relatively small size of city's claim and absence of evidence that it had acted other than in good faith, where debtors would be prejudiced by late allowance of city's tax claim, even in relatively modest amount, after plan had been confirmed, all timely filed claims had been administered, and all distributions had been made, especially given that debtors operated in 18 states and that there was possibility of similar claims, and where city's delay was due to circumstances entirely within its control, based on its mistaken belief that it did not have to file proof of claim.

vii. In re Hospital De Damas, Inc., 495 B.R. 180 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2013)

Issue: Whether proofs of claim filed by corporate debtor's union workers asserted claims that were arguably subject to the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") and fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB").

Holding: The court held that the proofs of claims filed by corporate debtor's union employees asserted claims that were arguably subject to the NLRA and fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB. The union employees sought payment of Christmas bonuses after the expiration of

©2014 William L. Norton III