{1544/00/02794069.DOCX / 1}DEBTOR’S RESPONSE OPPOSED TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

PAGE 1 OF 6

AGRIBUSINESS’ LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

MULLIN HOARD & BROWN, L.L.P.

Steven L. Hoard, SBN: 09736600

Alysia Córdova, SBN: 24074076

Flannery Nardone, SBN: 24083183

P.O. Box 31656

Amarillo, Texas 79120-1656

Telephone: (806) 372-5050

Facsimile: (806) 372-5086

shoard@mhba.com

acordova@mhba.com

fnardone@mhba.com

Counsel for Debtor

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

IN RE:

CAPROCK MILLING & CRUSHING, 

LLC,

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 23-20251-RLJ-11

DEBTOR’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

AGRIBUSINESS, LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

TO THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. JONES U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Comes now CapRock Milling & Crushing, LLC (“Debtor”) and files this its Response in 

Opposition to Motion of Perdue Agribusiness, LLC to Extend Time to File Proof of Claim [Doc. 

90] (the “Motion”) in the above-entitled and numbered bankruptcy proceeding.

JURISDICTION

1. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. 

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

BACKGROUND

2. On November 3, 2023 (the “Petition Date”), Debtor commenced this case by filing 

a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Debtor has been operating its 

Case 23-20251-rlj11 Doc 96 Filed 03/20/24 Entered 03/20/24 17:47:12 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 6
{1544/00/02794069.DOCX / 1}DEBTOR’S RESPONSE OPPOSED TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

PAGE 2 OF 6

AGRIBUSINESS’ LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

business as a debtor-in-possession. Debtor is a Texas limited liability company dealing primarily 

in the processing and storage of agricultural commodities. 

3. Perdue falsely claims that they did not receive notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy.

See Motion at ⁋ 4. On November 15, 2023, Debtor mailed a true and correct copy of the Notice 

of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case to all parties identified on Exhibit A. [Doc. 10]. The mailing 

included Perdue Agribusiness, LLC (“Perdue”) and was mailed to P.O. Box 1537, Salisbury, MD 

21802, which is the notice address listed on the contracts between Perdue and the Debtor. [Doc. 

10, 10-1]. Perdue is listed in the certificate of service for numerous subsequent mailings. 

4. The November 15, 2023 mailing included the deadline to file a proof of claim, 

which was March 12, 2024. 

5. Perdue filed the Motion on February 28, 2024, but failed to seek emergency relief 

or file a claim before the deadline.

6. Although the Motion represents that Perdue has claims against Debtor (see, e.g., 

Motion at ⁋ 8), Perdue represented to the Court at the March 19, 2024 hearing on Perdue’s Motion

to Withdraw Reference that Perdue no longer intends to assert any claims against Debtor. This 

is inconsistent with Perdue’s Motion and prior representations to the Court.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

7. Given Perdue’s representation that it no longer intends to assert any claims against 

Debtor, the Motion is moot and should be denied (or withdrawn by Perdue) as such. For the 

purposes of this Response, Debtor assumes Perdue intends to maintain its represented intention to 

file, at a date uncertain, a proof of claim as urged in Perdue’s Motion.

8. The purpose of establishing a bar date for claims is to encourage the prompt 

administration of the estate. See, e.g., In re Ungar, 70 B.R. 519, 521 (Bankr.E.D.Penn.1987). This 

Case 23-20251-rlj11 Doc 96 Filed 03/20/24 Entered 03/20/24 17:47:12 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 6
{1544/00/02794069.DOCX / 1}DEBTOR’S RESPONSE OPPOSED TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

PAGE 3 OF 6

AGRIBUSINESS’ LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

prompt administration accrues to the benefit of the creditors, the debtor, and the court. Id. For these 

reasons, courts have been reluctant to grant exceptions to the timing and requirements for filing a 

proof of claim. In re Murchison, 85 B.R. 37, 41 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1987).

9. Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c)(6) provides that:

On motion filed by a creditor before or after the expiration of the time to file a proof 

of claim, the court may extend the time by not more than 60 days from the date of 

the order granting the motion. The motion may be granted if the court finds that the 

notice was insufficient under the circumstances to give the creditor a reasonable 

time to file a proof of claim.

FED. R. BANKR. PRO. 3002(c)(6).

10. Courts have also held that they may enlarge the time to file a proof of claim under 

Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1) only if the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. 

“Excusable neglect is usually defined as ‘the failure to timely perform a duty . . . due to 

circumstances which were beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to 

perform.’” In re Murchison, 85 B.R. at 39. In Murchison, the court held that when the creditor was 

aware of the bankruptcy filing and participated in the creditor’s meeting, failing to file a claim did 

not amount to excusable neglect. Id.

11. Here, Perdue seeks the extension of its deadline to file a proof of claim for its own 

convenience and self-interest. Perdue’s basis for requesting relief from this Court as to the proof 

of claim deadline has nothing to do with the relevant equities and resolution of this case in an 

efficient and convenient manner for all the parties involved. Instead, Perdue seeks to delay the 

filing deadline to bolster its attempts to withdraw the reference of the related adversary proceeding 

filed by the Debtor against in order to avoid the jurisdiction of this Court and to ultimately transfer 

the adversary proceeding to its home forum in the District of Maryland. See Adv. No. 24-02000-

rlj , Dkt. Nos. 7, 9. Therefore, because Perdue’s true intentions are evident and because Perdue 

Case 23-20251-rlj11 Doc 96 Filed 03/20/24 Entered 03/20/24 17:47:12 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 6
{1544/00/02794069.DOCX / 1}DEBTOR’S RESPONSE OPPOSED TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

PAGE 4 OF 6

AGRIBUSINESS’ LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

received timely notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy, Perdue is not entitled to an extension. Bar dates 

are commonly fixed by orders pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(2) so that the amounts of 

claims may be quantified. Without such quantification, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 

structure a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. 

12. Because of the essential function of a bar order, and in reliance on the Supreme 

Court's decisions in Granfinanciera and Langenkamp, the Second Circuit held in In re Hooker 

Investments, Inc., that a creditor does not have the right to a deferral of the bar date by which a 

proof of claim must be filed, even though, by filing a proof of claim in order to participate in 

distributions, the creditor would lose the right to a jury trial in a preference or fraudulentconveyance proceeding. In re Hooker Investments, Inc., 937 F.2d 833, 839-40 (2d Cir. 1991) (“The 

Bank goes on to argue, however, that the bankruptcy court should have preserved its right to a jury 

trial in the adversary proceeding by allowing it to postpone filing a proof of claim until the 

adversary proceeding had concluded. . . . We disagree.”).

13. The Hooker Investments Court observed that:

Accepting the Bank's argument here would require a bankruptcy court to stay the 

effect of its bar order to preserve the jury-trial rights of any creditor from whom a 

debtor or trustee sought to recover preferences. It is also likely that in many 

instances creditors could not ascertain before the bar date whether the debtor or 

trustee intended to assert such claims, and that these creditors, too, would seek to 

stay the effect of the bar order to preserve their jury-trial rights in the event such 

claims were asserted. As the bankruptcy court observed, requiring that a bar order 

be drafted in such a way that it would “preserve rights for anybody who felt that 

they might . . . be prejudicing themselves . . . by filing a Proof of Claim” would “set

[] a very dangerous precedent.”

Id. at 839. Consequently, that Perdue may lose some potential right to a jury trial or that Perdue 

may need to resolve its claims against Debtor in Texas rather than Maryland is not a sufficient 

reason to extend the bar date previously fixed by the bankruptcy court pursuant to Bankruptcy 

Case 23-20251-rlj11 Doc 96 Filed 03/20/24 Entered 03/20/24 17:47:12 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 6
{1544/00/02794069.DOCX / 1}DEBTOR’S RESPONSE OPPOSED TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

PAGE 5 OF 6

AGRIBUSINESS’ LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

Rule 3003(c)(3). Id.; see also, Effect of filing a proof of claim, 1 Norton Bankr. L. & Prac. 3d §§ 

4:66; 4:128.

14. Further, Perdue requests an extension outside the permissible statutory scope. The 

statute specifically limits the extension of the time to file a proof of claim to no more than sixty 

days from the Order granting the Motion. FED. R. BANKR. PRO. 3002(c)(6). Perdue requests an 

extension of its deadline to file a proof of claim to thirty days after the sale of the assets, the timing 

of which is currently unknown and may exceed sixty days from the entry of any order granting the 

Motion.

15. Finally, the statute specifically states it may be “granted if the court finds that the 

notice was insufficient.” See id. Here, it was not. Perdue has had more than a reasonable amount 

of time to file a proof of claim as it received notice of the bankruptcy in November. [Doc 10, 10-

1]. Perdue had notice and could have filed a timely proof of claim, but elected not to for strategic 

reasons.

For these reasons, Debtor CapRock Milling & Crushing, LLC respectfully requests that the 

Court deny Perdue Agribusiness, LLC’s motion to extend the time period during which it may file 

a proof of claim and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 23-20251-rlj11 Doc 96 Filed 03/20/24 Entered 03/20/24 17:47:12 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 6
{1544/00/02794069.DOCX / 1}DEBTOR’S RESPONSE OPPOSED TO MOTION OF PERDUE 

PAGE 6 OF 6

AGRIBUSINESS’ LLC TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PROOF OF CLAIM

Respectfully Submitted,

MULLIN HOARD & BROWN, L.L.P.

P.O. Box 31656

Amarillo, Texas 79120-1656

Telephone: (806) 372-5050

Facsimile: (806) 372-5086

/s/ Steven L. Hoard

Steven L. Hoard, SBN: 09736600

Alysia Córdova, SBN: 24074076

Flannery Nardone, SBN: 24083183

shoard@mhba.com

acordova@mhba.com

fnardone@mhba.com

Counsel for Debtor CapRock Milling & Crushing, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served on all parties 

receiving notice via ECF on this 20th day of March 2024.

/s/ Steven L. Hoard

Steven L. Hoard

Case 23-20251-rlj11 Doc 96 Filed 03/20/24 Entered 03/20/24 17:47:12 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 6