Court Opinion

ID: 9857485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:40:24.424217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:53.650164
License: Public Domain

JAMES D. GREGG, Bankruptcy Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the en banc decision. The Bankruptcy Code and Rules must be harmonized unless it is impossible to do so.
*200“Statutory construction ... is a holistic endeavor. A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme.... ” United Sav. Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371, 108 S.Ct. 626, 630, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988) (citations omitted). Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code refers both to sections 501 and 502.1 Congress made a distinction between a claim being “disallowed” pursuant to section 502 and “not ... allowed” pursuant to section 501. Further, in section 506(d)(2), Congress stated a claim may not be an allowed claim “due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.” Hausla-den fails to give appropriate analytical weight to section 501 and totally ignores section 506(d). Reading all Code sections together mandates that an untimely claim (as procedurally defined in the Bankruptcy Rules) shall not be allowed; such a claim is “barred”.
The Supreme Court has also recently addressed untimely filed claims in a case involving the “excusable neglect” exception. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). In Pioneer Investment, the Court held a late filed proof of claim in a chapter 11 case may be allowed under certain circumstances by reason of “excusable neglect” under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1). Id. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 1492. In its discussion, albeit dicta, the Court noted that the “excusable neglect” exception is restricted by the Bankruptcy Rules. “Subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of [Bankruptcy] Rule 9006 enumerate those time requirements excluded from the operation of the ‘excusable neglect’ standard. One of the time requirements listed as excepted in Rule 9006(b)(3) is that governing the filings of proofs of claim in Chapter 7 cases. Such filings are governed exclusively by Rule 3002(c). ” Id. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 1495 n. 4 (emphasis supplied).
Bankruptcy Rule 3002 is not limited to chapter 7 cases. It governs chapter 12 and chapter 13 as well. Therefore, filing of chapter 13 claims is also “governed exclusively by Rule 3002(c).” The Supreme Court has sent a strong signal that the Bankruptcy Rule-imposed claims filing deadline, or “bar date”, must be enforced. Following Hausladen renders section 501 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 3002 meaningless. I decline to do so.

. Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code states:
To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void unless—
(1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502(b)(5) or 502(e) of this title; or
(2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.