### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10781 Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: DLH MASTER LAND HOLDING, L.L.C.; ALLEN CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.L.C.,

Debtors

------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------- BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Appellant

v. ALLEN CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.L.C.; THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS,
Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CV-757

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 13 , 20 12
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10781 Document: 00511786186 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2012No. 11-10781

On appeal, Bank of America (“BOA”) challenges the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of BOA’s motion to permit late filing of proof of claim. Upon consideration and review of the record before us, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 25, 2010, DLH Master Land Holdings, L.L.C. (“DLH”) filed a

v oluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. O n January 26, 2010, the bankruptcy court i s s u e d a Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case, Me e t i n g of Creditors, & Deadlines

. This Notice clearly established, inter alia , the Bar Date of June 2, 2010. 1
On February 4, 2010, BOA received the Notice , but did not notify Snell &
Wilmer of the bankruptcy case until “late May, early June.” On June 1, 2010,

2
Snell & Wilmer filed its notice of appearance, but was directed by BOA to focus
its attention on the non-debtor affiliates as co-debto r s o n t h e obligations owed to BOA. On July 14, 2010, forty-two days after the expiration of the Bar Date, BOA filed its original proof of claim. On November 3, 2010, BOA filed its motion to 3 permit late filing of proof of claim, arguing th a t th e fo rty -tw o d a y d e la y in filin g its p ro o f o f cla im re su lte d fro m a m i s c o m m u n i c a tio n w ith in th e firm o f its

o u t s i d e c o u n se l a n d th a t it sh o u ld n o t b e p e n a lize d fo r its co u n se l’s m ista k e s. B O A a lso a sse rts th a t a llo w in g it to file its la te p ro o f o f cla im w o u l d n o t

p re ju d ice th e d e b to r b e ca u se th e d e b to r h a s b e e n a w a re o f B O A ’s cla im sin ce th e b e g in n in g o f t h e b a n k ru p tcy p ro ce e d in g

. As representative of the unsecured creditors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ( “ OCUC”) filed its

The Bar Da te is the dat e by wh ich all cre dit ors mus t fil e thei r pr oof of clai m in ord er 1 to be tre ated as a cre dit or.

The Calif

orni a law fir m of Snel l & Wilm er wa s hire d t o rep res ent BOA in the 2 bank rup tcy cas e.

BOA late r ame nded it s pr oof of c laim r educ ing t he amo unt of the clai m. 3

2 Case: 11-10781 Document: 00511786186 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2012No. 11-10781

objections to BOA’s motion. On January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing to consider BOA’s motion and OCUC’s objections. On February 10, 2011, the bankruptcy c o u r t issued its order denying BOA’s motion to permit late fili ng of proof of claim. T h e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt
sta te d : T h e fa cts p re se n te d to th e C o u rt a t th e h e a rin g o n th is m o tio n d o
n o t re p re se n t th e ty p i c a l “ c lie n t b e in g p e n a lize d fo r co u n se l’s

m i sta k e ” sce n a rio , b u t in ste a d sh o w a situ a tio n w h e re B a n k o f A m e rica re ce iv e d m u ltip le n o tice s o f th e b a r d a te fo r filin g its p ro o f

o f cla im , a n d fa ile d to in fo rm co u n se l o f t h i s b a r d a te a t th e tim e th a t it e n g a g e d it to m o n ito r th is ca se

. B a n k o f A m e rica h a d n o tice

o f th e b a r d a te w e ll in a d v a n ce o f th e d e a d lin e ; a n d th e re fo re , th e re is in a d v e r t e n c e o n th e p a rt o f th e b a n k , n o t co u n se l, w h ich a cte d p ro m p tly in filin g a p ro o f o f cla im o n ce it d i s c o v e r e d th e e rro r. A s sta te d in th e o b je ctio n file d b y th e U ns ec ur ed Cr edi t or s ’ Co m m itte e , P io n eer w o u l d su g g e st th a t m e re in a d v e rte n ce is n o t e n o u g h to

m e e t th e e x cu sa b le n e g le ct sta n d a rd

. B a n k o f A m e rica d id n o t m e e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f a n d its m o tio n m u st b e d e n ie d

. On February 22, 2011, BOA appealed to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)( 1 )

. T h e o n ly issu e o n a p p e a l to th e d istrict co u rt w a s w h e th e r th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt a b u se d its d iscre tio n in d e n y in g B O A ’s m o tio n to p e rm it la te filin g o f p ro o f o f cla im

. A fte r re v ie w in g th e e v id e n ce , th e d istrict co u rt e n te re d
its o rd e r a ffirm in g th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s d e n ia l o f B O A ’s m o tio n

. D IS C U S S IO N O n a p p e a l, B O A cla im s th a t th e d istrict co u rt e rre d in a ffirm in g th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s fin d in g th a t B O A ’s in a d v e rte n ce d id n o t c o n s titu te “e x cu sa b le n e g le ct.”
T h e d istrict co u rt, sittin g a s a n a p p e lla te co u rt, re v ie w s a b a n k ru p tcy

co u rt’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n to p e rm it la te filin g o f p ro o f o f cla im fo r a n a b u se o f
d iscre tio n

. P io n eer In v

. S erv

. C o . v . B ru n sw ick A sso c., L .P

. , 5 0 7 U .S . 3 8 0 , 3 9 5 (1 9 9 3 ). “W e re v ie w th e d e cisio n o f a d istrict co u rt, sittin g a s a n a p p e lla te co u rt,

3 Case: 11-10781 Document: 00511786186 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2012No. 11-10781

b y a p p ly in g th e sa m e sta n d a rd o f re v ie w to th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s fin d in g s o f
fa ct a n d co n clu sio n s o f la w a s a p p lie d b y th e d istrict co u rt.” In re E n trin g er B a k eries, In c. , 5 8 4 F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).
I n o r d e r to o b ta in p e rm issio n to file a p ro o f o f cla im a fte r th e B a r D a t e , th e m o v a n t h a s t h e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g “e x cu sa b le n e g le ct” u n d e r F e d e ra l
R u le o f B a n k ru p tcy P ro ce d u re 9 0 0 0 6 (b )(1 )

. W h e n d e te rm in in g w h e th e r th e

m o v a n t h a s m e t its b u rd e n , w e a r e to co n sid e r “a ll re le v a n t circu m sta n ce s

su rro u n d in g th e p a rty ’s o m issio n .” P io n eer In v

. S e r v

. C o

. , 5 0 7 U .S

. a t 3 9 5

. When c on sid e rin g th e re le v a n t circu m sta n ce s su rro u n d ing t he par t y’ s omi s s i on, th e co u rt sh o u ld lo o k to : (1 ) th e d a n g e r o f p re ju d ice to th e d e b to r; (2 ) th e le n g th

o f th e d e la y a n d its p o te n tia l im p a ct o n ju d icia l p ro ce e d in g s; (3 ) th e re a so n fo r th e d e la y , in clu d in g w h e th e r it w a s w ith in th e re a so na b le co n tro l o f th e m o v a n t;

a n d (4 ) w h e th e r th e m o v a n t a cte d in g o o d fa ith

. Id

. (“ P io n eer T e st”). In o rd e r
to re v e rse th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s d e n ia l o f B O A ’s m o tio n to p e rm it la te filin g o f

p ro o f o f cla im , th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt m u st h a v e b a se d its fin d in g s o n a cle a rly

e rro n e o u s v ie w o f th e e v id e n ce o r th e la w

. Id

. U n d e r th e P io n eer te st, th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt fo u n d th a t B O A ’s
in a d v e rte n ce d id n o t rise to th e le v e l o f “e x cu sa b le n e g le ct.” W h ile th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt d id n o t p ro v id e a d e t a ile d o r le n g th y a n a ly sis, it is e v id e n t th a t B O A d id n o t m e e t its b u rd e n

. T h e d istrict co u rt m a d e t h i s cle a r in its
A u g u st 2 , 2 0 1 1 , o rd e r a ffirm in g th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt. Because the district court correctly found that BOA failed to show that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying its motion to permit late filing of proof of claim BOA is not entitled to relief. Therefore, the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of BOA’s motion to permit late filing is AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 11-10781 Document: 00511786186 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/13/2012