### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma rch 31, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble J ohn F. Na

ng le, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Missouri, sit ting by

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1290 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-22180 -CIV BKCY No . 94 -1 02 02 -BKC- AJ IN RE: BANCO LATINO INTERNATIONAL, De btor.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ BANCO LATINO INTERNAT IONAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us GUSTAVO A. GOMEZ LOPEZ , MAR IATE RE SAPU LG AR, GIACOMO LEON, D ef en da nts -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 31, 200 5) Before BL ACK

and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and NA NG LE , D istrict Judg e.

* PE R CU RIA M:2

Appe llants a rg ue the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing the ir

ind em nif ic at ion cl ai m s a ga ins t B an co L at ino I nte rn at ion al ( “ BL I” ) be ca use it im pr ope rl y r el ie d on P ion ee r I nv . Se rv s. Co . v . B runs wi ck

A sso cs . L td. P ’s hip . , 507 U . S. 380 , 113 S . Ct . 1489 ( 1993 ). W e dis ag re e an d a ff irm the w el l- re as one d di str ic t c ourt de ci sio n reported at 310 B.R . 780 (S. D. Fla. 2004 ). I. BACKGROUND App el le e BLI was an Edg e ActBan k o pe rat in g i n t he st at e o f Fl or id a. On January 19, 199 4, BL I fi le d avol unt ar y pe tit ionf or bankr upt cy und er Ch ap te r 11 o f t h e B a n kr

up t c y C o d e . T h e B a n kr

up t c y C o u rts e tA u g u s t9 , 1 9 9 4 a s t h e c l a i ms ba r da te . Ap p el l an t s we re p re -b an kru p t cy d i re ct o rs an d/ o r o ff i ce rs o f B LI . B LI ’s June 199 4 D isc los ur e St at em en ts p la ce d Appe llants on n oti ce tha t i t m ay f ile c ivi l claim s against them

for w rongful cond uct com m itted while acting as directors an d/ oroff

ic ers , and BLI su bs eq ue nt ly did in 19 95 . See B anco Latin o v. Gom ez Lopez , 17 F . S upp. 2d 1 327 (S . D . F la . 199 8) . B L I’ s c la im s w er e not suc ce ssf ul tho ugh an d Appe llants ’ m oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t w er e gr an te d. See B anco Latino Int’l. v. Gom ez Lopez , 95 F. Sup p. 2 d 1 32 7, 1 33 7 (S .D. Fla. 2 00 0) . Purs ua nt t o B L I’ s c or

por at e by -l aw s, Appe llants w oul d have be ene nti tle d to indem nification for the costs and expens es of defe ndin g that lawsuit. H owever ,3

Appellants did no t file a c laim for indem

nification bythe claim s bar date, instead fil in g t he ir c la im s m or e th an fiv e y ears aft er t he de ad li ne . Banco Latino Int’l. v. Gom ez Lopez , 310 B. R. 780, 785 (S.D . F la. 2004 ). T he bankr

upt cy c ourt gr an te d Appe llants ’ m oti on f or a llo w an ce a nd pa ym en t o f th ei r in de m

ni fic at io n c la im s. In re B anco Latin o Int’l . , Ca se N o. 94- 1020 2- BK C- A JC ( S. D . F la . , January 23, 200 3) . Y et , the bankr upt cy c ourt di d no t me n t i o n , l e ta l o n e d i s t i n g u i s h , t h e p r e s e n tc a s e f r o m Pioneer . The district court re ve rs ed the bankr

upt cy c ourt’ s or de r, r el y ing on P ion ee r an d no tin g it w as the

“ sem inal case on the issue.” B anc o L ati no , 310 B. R. a t 78 4. II. DISCUS SION T he dis tr ic t c ourt a

ptl y sum m ar iz ed Pioneer , statin g: In Pioneer , the S upr em e Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at Ru le 300 3( c) of

the Fe de ra l R ule s of Bankr upt cy P ro ce dur e se ts o ut the r equir em en ts f or fi lin g pr oof

s of c la im in . . . Ch ap te r 11 R eo rg an iz at ionc as es , a nd ex pli ci tly he ld tha t R

ule 900 6( b) (1 ) m

ust be c onstru ed

to gove rnthe perm issib ility

of late f iling s in Chapter 11 bankrup tcies. Bankruptcy Ru le 900 6( b) e m

pow er s abankr

upt cy c ourt t o pe rm it a la te f

ili ng i f the m ovant’ s f

ai lur e to c om

ply w itha n e ar lie r de ad lin e w as the r es ult of e xc usa ble ne gle ct . Id . ( int er na l c ita tio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). Appe llants ’ a tte m pt t o a voi d application o f P ion ee r is una va ili ng; the c as es c ite d insup port of the ir a rg um en t are i na pp li cab le as i nd ic at edby the di st ric t co ur t. Se e id. at 785–8 6. I f4

Appe llants , li ke a ny one e lse , w ishto fi le c la im s a ft er the c la im s bar da te in a Ch ap te r 11 b an kr

upt cy , the n th ey

m ust de m onstrate tha t the ir

f ai lur e to f ile ti m el y claim s was the r esult of excusable neglect. A s Appellants have not even attem pted to arg ue e xc usa

ble ne gle ct

to thi s C ourt, w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the

“ late filing of the claim s shou ld not have been allowe d.” Id . a t 78 5. AFFIR MED.