## Facts

- Enron Corp. and affiliates filed Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The bankruptcy court set a bar date requiring creditors to file proofs of claim against each debtor entity.
- Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership had a long-term natural-gas purchase contract assumed by an Enron subsidiary.
- Midland timely filed a proof of claim against the Enron subsidiary but did not timely file a proof of claim against Enron Corp.
- About six months after the bar date, Midland moved to (a) amend its timely claim to add Enron Corp. as an obligor or (b) file a new late claim against Enron Corp.
- Midland argued the failure to file against Enron Corp. resulted from excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1) and the equitable test in Pioneer.
- The bankruptcy court denied the motion, citing the length of delay, lack of a sufficient reason, and prejudice to administration of a large reorganization if late claims were permitted.
- The district court affirmed, emphasizing deference to bar dates in bankruptcy administration.

## Issues

1. Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by denying a creditor’s post–bar date request to add Enron Corp. to a timely proof of claim filed against an affiliate.
2. Whether the request should be treated as a permissible amendment to a timely claim or as a new late-filed claim against a separate debtor estate.
3. Whether the creditor showed excusable neglect under Rule 9006(b)(1) and Pioneer sufficient to permit a late claim.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court and bankruptcy court.
- The court held there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to allow either an amendment adding Enron Corp. or a new late-filed claim against Enron Corp.
- The court agreed the neglect was not excusable under Pioneer given the six-month delay, the absence of a compelling reason within the creditor’s control, and the potential prejudice to orderly claims administration in a large Chapter 11 case.
- The court accepted the bankruptcy court’s view that adding a new debtor entity after the bar date was substantive and properly subjected to late-claim standards.

## Legal Principles

- A bankruptcy court’s ruling on excusable neglect under Rule 9006(b)(1) is equitable and reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.
- Under Pioneer, excusable neglect requires weighing: (1) prejudice to the debtor, (2) length of delay and impact on proceedings, (3) reason for delay and whether it was within the movant’s control, and (4) good faith.
- Bar dates serve a central function in Chapter 11 by allowing reliable identification and quantification of claims; enforcement is especially strict in large, complex reorganizations.
- A post–bar date “amendment” that effectively asserts liability against a separate debtor estate (by adding a new obligor) may be treated as a late claim requiring a showing of excusable neglect, rather than as a routine correction.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld strict enforcement of a Chapter 11 bar date and affirmed denial of a creditor’s attempt to assert a claim against a parent debtor six months late, holding that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in finding no excusable neglect under Pioneer and in treating the request as a substantive late claim rather than a mere amendment.


In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2005)