FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 March 31, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

 Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Missouri, sitting by designation.

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-12907

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-22180-CIV

BKCY No. 94-10202-BKC-AJ

IN RE: BANCO LATINO INTERNATIONAL,

Debtor.

__________________________________________________________________

BANCO LATINO INTERNATIONAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUSTAVO A. GOMEZ LOPEZ, 

MARIA TERESA PULGAR,

GIACOMO LEON,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 31, 2005)

Before BLACK and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE , District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:
2

Appellants argue the district court erred in denying their indemnification

claims against Banco Latino International (“BLI”) because it improperly relied on

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship., 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct.

1489 (1993). We disagree and affirm the well-reasoned district court decision

reported at 310 B.R. 780 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

I. BACKGROUND

Appellee BLI was an Edge Act Bank operating in the state of Florida. On

January 19, 1994, BLI filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11

of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court set August 9, 1994 as the claims

bar date. 

Appellants were pre-bankruptcy directors and/or officers of BLI. BLI’s

June 1994 Disclosure Statements placed Appellants on notice that it may file civil

claims against them for wrongful conduct committed while acting as directors

and/or officers, and BLI subsequently did in 1995. See Banco Latino v. Gomez

Lopez, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 1998). BLI’s claims were not successful

though and Appellants’ motions for summary judgment were granted. See Banco

Latino Int’l. v. Gomez Lopez, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2000). 

Pursuant to BLI’s corporate by-laws, Appellants would have been entitled to

indemnification for the costs and expenses of defending that lawsuit. However,
3

Appellants did not file a claim for indemnification by the claims bar date, instead

filing their claims more than five years after the deadline. Banco Latino Int’l. v.

Gomez Lopez, 310 B.R. 780, 785 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

The bankruptcy court granted Appellants’ motion for allowance and

payment of their indemnification claims. In re Banco Latino Int’l., Case No. 94-

10202-BKC-AJC (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2003). Yet, the bankruptcy court did not

mention, let alone distinguish, the present case from Pioneer. The district court

reversed the bankruptcy court’s order, relying on Pioneer and noting it was the

“seminal case on the issue.” Banco Latino, 310 B.R. at 784.

II. DISCUSSION

The district court aptly summarized Pioneer, stating:

In Pioneer, the Supreme Court explained that Rule 3003(c) of the

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure sets out the requirements for

filing proofs of claim in . . . Chapter 11 Reorganization cases, and

explicitly held that Rule 9006(b)(1) must be construed to govern the

permissibility of late filings in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. Bankruptcy

Rule 9006(b) empowers a bankruptcy court to permit a late filing if

the movant’s failure to comply with an earlier deadline was the result

of excusable neglect.

Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Appellants’ attempt to avoid

application of Pioneer is unavailing; the cases cited in support of their argument

are inapplicable as indicated by the district court. See id. at 785–86. If
4

Appellants, like anyone else, wish to file claims after the claims bar date in a

Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then they must demonstrate that their failure to file timely

claims was the result of excusable neglect. As Appellants have not even attempted

to argue excusable neglect to this Court, we agree with the district court that the

“late filing of the claims should not have been allowed.” Id. at 785.

AFFIRMED.