1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: Chapter 11 

 PIER 1 IMPORTS, INC., et al., Case No. 20-30805-KRH 

 Reorganized Debtors. Jointly Administered 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion for Relief from Order Granting 

Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 1809] (the “Motion”) filed by GDI Aventura Development, LLC 

(“GDI”), through counsel, and the Reorganized Debtors’ Objection to Motion for Relief from 

Order Granting Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 1814] (the “Objection”) filed by Pier 1 Imports, 

Inc. and its reorganized debtor affiliates1

 (each, a “Debtor” and, collectively, the “Debtors” for 

periods prior to the Effective Date, as such term is defined herein, or each, a “Reorganized Debtor” 

and, collectively, the “Reorganized Debtors” for periods after the Effective Date). The Court 

conducted a hearing on February 21, 2024 (the “Hearing”), to consider the Motion. 

After considering the evidence, the arguments presented during the Hearing, the record in 

the above-captioned jointly administered bankruptcy cases, and applicable law, and for the reasons 

set forth below and stated on the record at the Hearing, this Memorandum Opinion sets forth the 

Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules 

of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”).2

 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction 

over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and 1334 and the General Order of Reference 

1

 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, are set forth in the Court’s Order (I) Directing Joint Administration of 

Chapter 11 Cases and (II) Granting Related Relief entered February 18, 2020. ECF No. 76. 

2

 Bankruptcy Rule 9014 makes Bankruptcy Rule 7052 applicable to this contested matter. Findings of fact shall 

be construed as conclusions of law and conclusions of law shall be construed as findings of fact when appropriate. 

See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 14
2

from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dated August 15, 1984. 

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Venue is appropriate in this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. 

The parties stipulated to the facts presented in this contested matter. See Stipulation of 

Facts, ECF No. 1813 [hereinafter Stipulation]. The uncontested facts are as follows. Prior to the 

filing of these jointly administered bankruptcy cases, one of the Debtors, Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), 

Inc., entered into a commercial lease agreement on or about February 26, 1999, with 

Henning/Trion Ventures I, Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest to GDI (the “Lease”). Stipulation ¶ 1, 

ECF No. 1813 at 1. Under the terms of the Lease, the Debtor agreed to pay monthly rent and other 

charges in exchange for the use of premises located in Aventura, Florida. Id. 

On February 17, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtors filed voluntary petitions under 

Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). Id. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1813 

at 2. The Court entered an order authorizing and directing Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC (the 

“Claims Agent”) to perform noticing services and to receive, maintain, record, and otherwise 

administer the proofs of claim in these bankruptcy cases. Id. ¶ 3, ECF No. 1813 at 2; Order 

(I) Approving Retention of Epiq Corp. Restructuring, LLC as Claims & Noticing Agent to 

Debtors, Effective Nunc Pro Tunc to Pet. Date & (II) Granting Related Relief, ECF No. 96. The 

Debtors were able to confirm a plan on July 30, 2020, see ECF No. 967, which became effective 

on October 9, 2020 (the “Effective Date”), ECF No. 1088. Stipulation ¶ 5, ECF No. 1813 at 3. 

Post-confirmation, on September 4, 2020, the Debtors filed a Notice of Rejection of Certain 

Executory Contracts and/or Unexpired Leases [ECF No. 1042], whereby the Debtors sought to 

reject the Lease as of September 25, 2020. Id. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1813 at 3. No objection was received 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 14
3

in connection therewith and the effective date of the rejection of the Lease was September 25, 

2020. Id.

On October 23, 2020, GDI through its agent, Savitar Realty Advisors (“Savitar”), timely 

filed3

 a proof of claim (the “Claim”) for a general unsecured claim in the amount of $461,698.96 

for damages allegedly resulting from the rejection of the Lease. Id ¶ 8, ECF No. 1813 at 3. The 

Claim was signed by Clifford Stein (“Stein”), the President of Savitar, and further provided that 

all notices to GDI should be sent to GDI care of “Savitar Realty Advisors, 5345 Pine Tree Drive, 

Miami Beach, FL 33140” (the “Service Address”). Id. Ex. A, ECF No. 1813 at 9-10. 

Between September 18, 2020, through January 14, 2021, Stein communicated with counsel 

for the Reorganized Debtors with respect to the Claim. See id. ¶ 10 & Ex. B, ECF No. 1813 at 4, 

27-29. In January 2021, Stein requested counsel for the Reorganized Debtors provide a status 

update on the Claim. Id. Ex. B, ECF No. 1813 at 26. The Reorganized Debtors, by their plan 

administrator, stated via email that, “[m]ost of the claim you filed was unsecured for which we 

expect no distribution.” Id. (emphasis added). Communications between the Reorganized Debtors 

and Stein then ceased. 

3

 On March 13, 2020, the Court entered an Order (I) Setting Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claim, Including 

Requests for Payment Under Section 503(b)(9), (II) Establishing Amended Schedules Bar Date and Rejection 

Damages Bar Date, (III) Approving the Form of and Manner for Filing Proofs of Claim, Including Section 

503(b)(9) Requests, (IV) Approving Notice of Bar Dates, and (V) Granting Related Relief [ECF No. 345] (the 

“Claims Bar Date Order”). Among other things, the Claims Bar Date Order set a deadline for the filing of proofs 

of claim based on damages incurred from the rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases on the 

later of (i) the General Claims Bar Date [of April 17, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.] . . . and 

(ii) 4:00 p.m., prevailing Eastern time, on the date that is 30 days after the later of 

(A) entry of an order approving the rejection of any executory contract or 

unexpired lease of the Debtors or (B) the effective date of a rejection of any 

executory contract or unexpired lease of the Debtors pursuant to operation of any 

Court order. 

Claims Bar Date Order ¶ 6, ECF No. 345 at 3-4. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 14
4

Just over two years later, on April 25, 2023, the Reorganized Debtors filed the Reorganized 

Debtors’ Twentieth Omnibus Objection to Certain (A) No Liability Claims, (B) Duplicate Claims, 

(C) Insufficient Documentation Claims, (D) Late Filed Claims, (E) Amended Claims, (F) Reduced 

Claims, and (G) Satisfied Claims [ECF No. 1553] (the “Claim Objection”), which sought to reduce 

the Claim to zero dollars. Id. ¶¶ 11-12, ECF No. 1813 at 4. The Claims Agent served the Claim 

Objection on GDI at the Service Address. Cert. of Serv., ECF No. 1554; Stipulation ¶ 13, ECF 

No. 1813 at 4. Neither GDI nor Savitar filed a response to the Claim Objection. Stipulation ¶ 14, 

ECF No. 1813 at 4. Accordingly, on June 22, 2023, the Court entered the Order Granting 

Reorganized Debtors’ Twentieth Omnibus Objection to Certain (A) No Liability Claims, 

(B) Duplicate Claims, (C) Insufficient Documentation Claims, (D) Late Filed Claims, 

(E) Amended Claims, (F) Reduced Claims, and (G) Satisfied Claims [ECF No. 1585] (the 

“Order”), id. ¶ 15, ECF No. 1813 at 4, sustaining the Claim Objection and reducing the Claim to 

$0. The Claims Agent served a copy of the Order on GDI at the Service Address. Cert. of Serv., 

ECF No. 1590; Stipulation ¶ 16, ECF No. 1813 at 5. Prior to the filing of the instant Motion, 

neither GDI nor Savitar filed a response or motion in connection with the Order. Stipulation ¶ 17, 

ECF No. 1813 at 5. 

On September 13, 2023, the Reorganized Debtors filed the Notice of Allowed General 

Unsecured Claims [ECF No. 1643] (the “Notice of Allowed Claims”). Id. ¶ 18, ECF No. 1813 at 

5.4

 The Claims Agent served a customized version of the Notice of Allowed Claims,5 as well as 

4

 The Notice of Allowed Claims not only provided claimants with notice of the allowed amount of their general 

unsecured claim, but it also offered claimants a 14-day opportunity to notify counsel for the Reorganized Debtors 

if they did not believe the amount of a Claimants’ unsecured claim was accurately reflected prior to the 

commencement of any interim or final distributions by the Reorganized Debtors. Notice of Allowed Claims 3, 

ECF No. 1643 at 3. 

5

 The parties attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit C a copy of the customized version of Notice of Allowed Claims 

that was mailed to GDI on September 25, 2023. Stipulation Ex. C, ECF No. 1813 at 30-38. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 14
5

a Resolved Claims Notice,6 on GDI at the Service Address. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21, ECF No. 1813 at 5-6. 

The Resolved Claims Notice provided that the Claim had been adjusted in some fashion and to 

refer to the Notice of Allowed Claims to determine if any portion of the Claim was allowed. Id. 

Ex. D, ECF No. 1813 at 43. In turn, the customized version of the Notice of Allowed Claims 

provided that the Claim was allowed in the amount of $0.00. Id. Ex. C, ECF No. 1813 at 37. 

Although the Claims Agent mailed via first-class mail, postage prepaid, (1) the Claim 

Objection; (2) the Order; (3) the Notice of Allowed Claims; and (4) the Resolved Claims Notice 

to GDI’s Service Address as provided in the Claim, see id. ¶¶ 13, 16, 19, 21, ECF No. 1813 at 4, 

5-6, GDI alleges Savitar did not receive any of the foregoing documents, id. ¶ 26, ECF No. 1813 

at 6. 

GDI alleges that on November 13, 2023, Stein received an email inquiry from an unrelated 

third party concerning the potential purchase of the Claim. Mot. Ex. C, ECF No. 1809-1 at 30. 

This prompted Stein to contact counsel for the Reorganized Debtors on November 14, 2023—

thirty-fourth months since the prior email communication—for an update on any proposed 

distribution to general unsecured creditors. Stipulation Ex. E, ECF No. 1813 at 46. The 

Reorganized Debtors communicated that an interim distribution of 8-9% may be forthcoming to 

general unsecured creditors with a valid claim. Id., ECF No. 1813 at 45. But because the GDI 

claim was reduced to zero dollars, there would be no distribution at all to GDI. Id., ECF No. 1813 

at 47. Starting on December 14, 2023, the Reorganized Debtors began the process of making 

interim distributions to holders of allowed general unsecured claims. Id.¶ 25, ECF No. 1813 at 6. 

6 The parties attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit D a copy of the Resolved Claims Notice that was mailed to GDI 

on September 25, 2023. Stipulation Ex. D, ECF No. 1813 at 38-43. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 14
6

On January 31, 2024, GDI filed the Motion. Until the filing of the Motion, neither Savitar, 

GDI, nor any party on their behalf filed a notice of appearance in connection with the abovereferenced bankruptcy proceedings. Id. ¶ 27, ECF No. 1813 at 6. At no point prior to the filing of 

the Motion did Savitar, GDI, or any party on their behalf subscribe for free electronic docket alerts 

provided by the Claims Agent. Id. ¶ 28, ECF No. 1813 at 6. 

GDI now seeks to vacate the Order as it pertains to the Claim and for leave to file a late 

response to the Claim Objection. “A claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be 

reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed according to the 

equities of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 502(j); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3008. “Reconsideration of a 

claim that has been previously allowed or disallowed after objection is discretionary with the 

court.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3008 advisory committee’s note. 

“Reconsideration under 502(j) is a two-step process. First, a court must decide whether 

there is ‘cause’ for reconsideration. Then, the court must decide whether the ‘equities of the case’ 

dictate allowance or disallowance of the claim.” Dorula v. Flanders (In re Starlight Grp., LLC), 

515 B.R. 290, 293 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014) (quoting Americredit Fin. Servs. v. Durham (In re 

Durham), 329 B.R. 899, 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2005)). “The burden of establishing cause for 

reconsideration under 502(j) rests with the moving party.” Covert v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 779 

F.3d 242, 248 n.3 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing In re Starlight Grp., LLC, 515 B.R. at 293). 

“Cause” is not defined by section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code. “In determining whether 

cause exists under Bankruptcy Rule 3008, courts look to [Bankruptcy Rules] 9023 and 9024 which 

incorporate [Civil Rules] 59 and 60.” In re Starlight Grp., LLC, 515 B.R. at 293 (first citing United 

States v. Levoy (In re Levoy), 182 B.R. 827 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995); then citing Colley v. Nat’l Bank 

of Tex. (In re Colley), 814 F.2d 1008, 1010 (5th Cir. 1987); then citing Ark. Dep’t of Labor v. W.F. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 14
7

Hurley, Inc. (In re W. F. Hurley, Inc.), 612 F.2d 392, 396 n.4 (8th Cir. 1980)). “When 

reconsideration under Rule 3008 is sought after the . . . appeal period has expired, the motion is 

subject to the constraints of [Civil Rule] 60(b) as incorporated by [Bankruptcy] Rule 9024.” Id.

(quoting U.S. Funds, Inc. v. Wylie (In re Wylie), 349 B.R. 204, 209 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006)). 

As the appeal period ran prior to the filing of the Motion, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), 

Civil Rule 60 applies in the case at bar. Under Civil Rule 60(b), as made applicable to this 

contested matter by Bankruptcy Rule 9024, a party may seek relief from a final judgment or order 

due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 9024. Such a movant must show both that the party’s failure to act was neglectful and 

that such neglect was excusable. “The burden of proving excusable neglect rests on the creditor.” 

Board v. AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. (In re AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc.), 520 B.R. 185, 195 

(Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014) (citing In re US Airways, Inc., No. 04-13819-SSM, 2005 WL 3676186, at 

*7, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2696, at *23 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2005)). Excusable neglect “is not 

easily demonstrated, nor was it intended to be.” Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 

F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996). For the reasons outlined below, GDI has failed to carry its burden 

in this case. 

A. GDI did not act neglectfully. 

The Bankruptcy Code does not define “excusable neglect.” The Supreme Court has stated 

that the “ordinary meaning of ‘neglect’ is ‘to give little attention or respect’ to a matter, or, . . . ‘to 

leave undone or unattended to esp[ecially] through carelessness.’ The word therefore 

encompasses both simple, faultless omissions to act and, more commonly, omissions caused by 

carelessness.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993) 

(citation omitted) (emphasis and alterations in original). 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 14
8

Rather than demonstrating neglect, the record shows that GDI intentionally withdrew its 

participation in these bankruptcy cases once it learned that the Reorganized Debtors did not 

anticipate a distribution to unsecured creditors. Stipulation Ex. B, ECF No. 1813 at 24-29. GDI 

was actively engaged with the Debtors and in frequent communications with the Debtors about the 

Lease and the Claim, until GDI learned that its Claim may not be paid. Id. At that point, GDI 

ceased communications with the Reorganized Debtors for almost three years. Id. Ex. E, ECF No. 

1813 at 44-49. It was not until GDI learned through a third party that a distribution would be made 

to unsecured creditors that it recommenced such communication. Mot. ¶ 28, ECF No. 1809 at 6. 

GDI suggests that because its agent “was advised by estate professionals that no distribution to 

unsecured creditors was anticipated,” its inaction is excusable. Id. ¶ 30, ECF No. 1809 at 6. 

Although GDI had been actively engaged in these bankruptcy cases, the record shows that 

GDI made a conscious business decision that its continued participation no longer made economic 

sense based on the Reorganized Debtors’ projections. The Reorganized Debtors performed better 

than they originally anticipated. While GDI may have made a different decision with the benefit 

of hindsight, it cannot avail itself of the benefit of a bargain it elected not to strike. Cf. Enomoto 

v. Space Adventures, Ltd., 624 F. Supp. 2d 443, 454-55 (E.D. Va. 2009) (“‘[T]he mere expression 

of an opinion, however strong and positive the language may be,’ is not a statement of present 

fact. . . . They ‘are merely loose, conjectural or exaggerated, [and] go for nothing, though they may 

not be true, for a man is not justified in placing reliance upon them.’” (alterations in original) 

(internal citations omitted)). GDI’s intentional choice to “sit back and ignore the bankruptcy,” In 

re Quartercall Communs., Inc., No. 95-15090-AM, 1996 WL 910910, at *6, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 

2042, at *15 (Bankr. E.D. Va. May 15, 1996), does not constitute neglect and, as such, cannot 

constitute cause for reconsideration of the Order. Jacobs v. Hudson Real Est. Holdings, LLC, No. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 14
9

20-CIV-80911-RAR, 2021 WL 705785, at *4, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33184, at *10 (S.D. Fla. 

Feb. 23, 2021) (“Moreover, this proffered justification lends further support to the notion that 

Defendants’ failure to comply was the result of an intentional act, which, as explained above, 

precludes relief under Rule 60(b).”) 

B. Even assuming there is neglect, GDI has failed to show excusable neglect. 

To succeed under Civil Rule 60(b), GDI must show both neglect and excuse. Even 

assuming GDI could show that its actions were neglectful (which it cannot), GDI cannot prove 

such neglect was excusable. To determine whether neglect is excusable, the Court must perform 

an equitable inquiry that “tak[es] account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s” 

failure to act timely. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 395. These “circumstances” include: 

“(1) whether granting the delay will prejudice the debtor; (2) the length of the delay and its impact 

on efficient court administration; (3) whether the delay was beyond the reasonable control of the 

person whose duty it was to perform; [and] (4) whether the creditor acted in good faith.” Id. at 

385, 396 (internal citations omitted). 

Granting the Motion would prejudice the Reorganized Debtors and their creditors. The 

Order, among the many claim reconciliation orders entered in these bankruptcy cases, “allowed 

the Reorganized Debtors to accurately calculate their outstanding liabilities to creditors,” In re 

AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc., 520 B.R. at 196 (internal citation omitted), so that they could fund 

an interim distribution to general unsecured creditors. If the Court were to allow GDI to file a late 

response to the Claim Objection, “it is difficult to see on what basis the court could deny the same 

relief to dozens or perhaps hundreds of creditors who might now come forward and assert a 

previously” time-barred defense. See id. (quoting In re US Airways, Inc., 2005 WL 3676186, at 

*7, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2696, at *25). “Without the finality of those deadlines, the bankruptcy 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 14
10

process is robbed of the certainty the debtor needs.” Board v. AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc., 533 

B.R. 144, 148 (E.D. Va. 2015). Accordingly, the first factor weighs against granting the Motion. 

The Court finds that the length of the delay and its impact on efficient court administration 

also weighs against granting the Motion. Nine months passed between the filing of the Claim 

Objection and the filing of the Motion. GDI had been given four opportunities to note is 

opposition. Three months passed between the time GDI admits to learning of a possible 

distribution to unsecured creditors and the filing of the Motion. The length of this delay “stands 

in stark contrast to cases where courts have found the length of delay to be acceptable.” In re AMF 

Bowling Worldwide, Inc., 520 B.R. at 197 (collecting cases). 

If the Court were inclined to grant the Motion, “the administration of this bankruptcy would 

be delayed by several months, at minimum, to the detriment of all the other creditors.” Id. at 196. 

The Reorganized Debtors have now issued an interim distribution that at one time seemed entirely 

unlikely. If the Court granted to GDI the requested relief, the Reorganized Debtors would have to 

completely recalculate the interim distribution already provided. This could prejudice those 

creditors with allowed claims who chose to continue their participation in these bankruptcy cases. 

At a minimum, it would cause the Reorganized Debtors to incur additional administrative expense 

and would delay any further interim or final distributions. In a case that is now over four years 

old, that would certainly hinder the efficient administration of the case. 

The Court finds that the delay was well within GDI’s reasonable control and, as such, that 

the third factor is not satisfied in the case at bar. The parties stipulated that the Reorganized 

Debtors mailed via first-class mail, postage prepaid, (i) the Claim Objection, (ii) the Order, (iii) the 

Notice of Allowed Claims, and (iv) the Resolved Claims Notice to GDI’s Service Address. The 

parties do not contest that such service is sufficient under the Bankruptcy Rules. Fed. R. Bankr. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 14
11

P. 3007(a)(2)(A). Instead, GDI asserts that it did not receive any of these four mailings. Although 

the parties have stipulated that each mailing occurred, GDI denies receiving copies of the Claim 

Objection, the Order, the Notice of Allowed Claims, or the Resolved Claims Notice. Stipulation 

¶ 26, ECF No. 1813 at 6. 

“Service of process and service of any paper other than process or of notice by mail is 

complete on mailing.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(e). “When there is a right or requirement to act or 

undertake some proceedings within a proscribed period after being served and that service a is by 

mail... three days are added after the prescribed period would otherwise expire under Rule 

9006(a).” Id. 9006(f).7

 “Upon proof that mail is properly addressed, stamped and deposited in an 

appropriate receptacle, it is presumed to have been received by the addressee in the ordinary course 

of the mails. Moreover, testimony that amounts to a mere denial that a properly mailed notice was 

not received is arguably insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt.” In re Birdneck Apartment 

Assocs., II, L.P., 152 B.R. 65, 67 n.5 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1993) (citations omitted). 

GDI failed to present evidence of any standardized practice for receiving and processing 

mail, let alone evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption. See In re Taylor, Case No. 

97-27032-SCS, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1791 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 1998); In re Cassell, 206 B.R. 

853 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1997); see also In re Rayborn, 307 B.R. 710, 722 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2002) 

(“A creditor’s ‘denial of receipt alone does not rebut the presumption, but merely creates a question 

of fact’ for resolution by the bankruptcy court. ‘The presumption can only be overcome by clear 

and convincing evidence that the mailing was not, in fact, accomplished.’” (first quoting In re 

7

 Bankruptcy Rule 9006(f) is waived in these bankruptcy cases only where the “document is served by electronic 

or overnight mail.” Order (I) Establishing Certain Notice, Case Mgmt., & Admin. Proc. & (II) Granting Related 

Relief ¶ 13, ECF No. 151 at 14. The parties stipulated that the documents were served via first class mail. 

Stipulation ¶¶ 13, 16, 19, 21, ECF No. 1813 at 4, 5-6.

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 14
12

Longardner & Assocs., Inc., 855 F.2d 455, 459 (7th Cir. 1988); then citing In re STN Enters., Inc., 

94 B.R. 329, 334-35 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1988); then quoting In re Levoy, 182 B.R. at 834). GDI’s bald 

assertion that it did not receive the documents does not justify its delay. 

Furthermore, GDI had other options for it to receive notices. GDI could have elected to 

receive free electronic notifications in these bankruptcy cases. The Claims Agent hosts a website8

with free access to the complete docket and claims register, an extensive overview of the case, and 

a cache of important documents organized by topic. In white lettering with a conspicuous orange 

border, the website provides the ability to subscribe to docket alerts. During the Hearing, GDI 

argued that, with over 1800 documents filed in this case, receiving an email notification for each 

new document would be cumbersome. Again, as was its prerogative, GDI made the determination 

that reviewing free email alerts on docket filings was too great a burden to protect recovery on its 

Claim. 

Alternatively, GDI could have hired counsel to monitor the docket for activity concerning 

its Claim. See LBR 9010-1 (a party may appear on the record only through counsel). Although 

this would have required GDI to incur legal expense to engage counsel, GDI made the decision 

that pursuing this avenue was not worthwhile. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

delay was entirely within GDI’s control and, as such, the third factor is not satisfied. 

Finally, the parties did not provide evidence addressing the good faith standard set forth in 

Pioneer. While the Court does not find that GDI proceeded in bad faith, GDI did not meet its 

burden on this element, as it simply offered no evidence of its good faith. Nevertheless, GDI “has 

failed to satisfy any of the other three factors set forth in Pioneer.” In re AMF Bowling Worldwide, 

8

 The website may be found at https://dm.epiq11.com/case/pier1/info. 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 14
13

Inc., 520 B.R. at 197. For these reasons, GDI has not met its burden of proving excusable neglect 

and the Motion must be denied. 

C. The Reorganized Debtors had a bona fide objection to the GDI claim. 

“While Rule 3008 permits an order disallowing a claim to be reconsidered, the merits of 

the claim objection are no longer fair game unless the claimant first establishes a good excuse, 

cognizable under FRCP 60(b), for its failure to timely contest the objection.” In re Starlight Grp., 

LLC, 515 B.R. at 294. As GDI failed to meet the standard of Civil Rule 60, the Court need not 

address the merits of the Claim Objection. However, to the extent the merits can be an independent 

factor for the “equities of the case,” the Court finds that the Motion still fails. See id. at 293 (once 

the court has found cause – not present in the case at bar – the court must then “decide whether the 

‘equities of the case’ dictate allowance or disallowance of the claim” (quoting In re Durham, 329 

B.R. at 903)).

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a proof of claim is deemed allowed unless a party in interest, 

such as the debtor, objects. 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). “Once the objector produces” “evidence equal in 

probative force to the proof of claim,” the burden shifts to the claimant to prove the claim’s 

validity. In re Merry-Go-Round Enters., 241 B.R. 124, 134 (Bankr. D. Md. 1999). 

The Claim arose from the rejection of the Lease and consisted of alleged projected

“monthly base rent and related expenses owed to GDI pursuant to the Lease, and in accordance 

with the one-year statutory cap” of section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Mot. Ex. 1 ¶ 5, ECF 

No. 1809-1 at 3. At the time the Claim was filed, the amounts included in the Claim were all future 

forecasts. Stipulation ¶ 8 & Ex. A, ECF No. 1813 at 3, 8-12. 

The Reorganized Debtors objected to the Claim on the grounds that, “[b]ased upon the 

Debtors’ books and records, the amount asserted exceeds the amount reflected as due and owing 

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 14
14

and/or the claimant has failed to sufficiently mitigate its damages.” Claim Obj. sch. 6, ECF No. 

1553 at 64. GDI admits that the amount of the Claim may have been incorrect. Mot. ¶ 34, ECF 

No. 1809 at 7 (“GDI is a landlord creditor, whose lease was rejected by the Debtors, and which 

holds a valid claim for some amount of lease rejection damages for fixed monthly rents and other 

charges. While the Reorganized Debtors may have defenses to the precise amount of the claim, 

most of the claim consisted of liquidated amounts not subject to dispute.” (emphasis omitted)). 

The Reorganized Debtors do not bear the burden of estimating GDI’s Claim. Instead, upon 

the filing of the Claim Objection, the burden properly shifted to GDI to establish the validity and 

amount of its Claim. GDI failed to meet this burden. By its inaction, GDI failed to establish that 

it had a bona fide claim. 

Conclusion 

GDI has failed to prove the elements necessary for reconsideration under section 502(j) of 

the Bankruptcy Code. GDI deliberately disengaged from participating in these bankruptcy cases. 

While its decision may have been unwise, such conduct does not constitute excusable neglect 

under Civil Rule 60(b) or otherwise amount to cause under section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. 

A separate Order shall issue. 

Dated: March 11, 2024 /s/ Kevin R. Huennekens 

 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 

 Entered on Docket: March 11, 2024

Case 20-30805-KRH Doc 1820 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 13:27:21 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 14