In Re Crouthamel Potato Chip Co.
Opinion
*938 OPINION
The predominant issue in the controversy at bench is whether we should sustain the trustee’s objection to a creditor’s proof of claim when that claim was filed more than six months after conversion of the case from chapter 11 to chapter 7. For the reasons stated below we will sustain the objection.
The facts of this case are as follows: 1 The debtor filed a petition for reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”) on October 16, 1979. Thereafter the case was converted to a chapter 7 proceeding on November 12, 1982. The schedules filed with the petition indicated that an undisputed, uncontingent, liquidated claim was held against the debt- or by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local No. 1092, District No. 152 (“the Union”). After conversion, on March 25, 1983, the clerk’s office of this court distributed to creditors a notice which stated in part as follows:
A meeting of creditors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341 was held on March 7, 1983_ In order to share in any distribution, a creditor must file a proof of claim. Claims which are not filed within 6 months 2 of the date of the meeting of creditors will not be allowed, except as otherwise provided by law....
Notwithstanding the notice, the Union did not file its proof of claim (No. 143) until more than a year later, i.e., on June 28, 1984. The claim indicates that it is unsecured.
Bankruptcy Rule 3002(a) expresses in the following language the requirement that an unsecured creditor must generally file a proof of claim:
Rule 3002. Filing Proof of Claim or Interest
(a) NECESSITY FOR FILING. An unsecured creditor or an equity security holder must file a proof of claim or interest in accordance with this rule for the claim or interest to be allowed, except as provided in Rules 3003, 3004 and 3005.
The Union asserts that the reference in Rule 3002(a) to Rule 3003 3 renders its claim allowable without the need for filing a proof of claim. Rule 3003 states *939 that in a chapter 11 case the schedules filed with the debtor’s petition are prima facie evidence of the claims of creditors who are listed therein, and consequently proofs of claims are deemed filed and a creditor need not file a proof of claim unless his debt is listed as disputed, contingent or unliqui-dated. Rule 3003(b)(1) and (c)(2). This point of law is similarly expressed in 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a) 4 of the Code. Nevertheless, by its terms Rule 3003 is only applicable in cases under chapter 9 or 11, while § 1111 governs only chapter 11 cases. 11 U.S.C. § 103(f). Thus, the deemed filing of proofs of claims is allowed only in chapter 9 or 11 and ostensibly is not acceptable after conversion of a case from chapter 11 to chapter 7. In re Humblewit Farms, Inc., 23 B.R. 703 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.1982).
The Union vigorously opposes this proposition and relies on Bankruptcy Rule 1019 which states in part as follows:
Rule 1019. Conversion of Chapter 11 Reorganization Case or Chapter 13 Individual’s Debt Adjustment Case to
Chapter 7 Liquidation Case
When a chapter 11 or chapter 13 case has been converted to a chapter 7 case:
Jk * He Hs *
(4) Claims Filed in Superseded Case. All claims filed in the superseded case shall be deemed filed in the chapter 7 case.
# ‡ # :¡s ^
The Union asserts that the phrase “all claims filed” in Rule 1019(4) means all claims deemed filed as well as all claims actually filed. We find this construction at odds with the requirement of Rule 3002(a) and the terms of Rule 1019(4) and we hold that Rule 1019(4) only provides that only those claims actually filed in the chapter 11 case will be deemed filed in the chapter 7 proceeding. Consequently, when a chapter 11 proceeding is converted to chapter 7, those unsecured creditors who did not file proofs of claims during the pendency of the chapter 11 proceeding must do so within the time limit established after conversion.
Notwithstanding our determination that the Union’s claim was not filed timely, it requests that we grant it an enlargement under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) 5 of the time period for timely filing a claim so its claim of June 28, 1984, will be appropriately filed. As indicated by Rule 9006(b)(3), an enlargement of the time period provided by Rule 3002(c) may only be granted according to the terms of Rule 3002(c). Under Rule 3002(c) 6 the court may grant ex *940 tensions of time under six provisions, but the Union falls within none of these categories. Therefore, no enlargement of the time period provided by Rule 3002(c) can be granted. Accord, In re Pigott, 684 F.2d 239 (3d Cir.1982) (bankruptcy court had no equitable power to extend bar date for filing claim in situations other than those provided in the rules or statute). Since no enlargement can be granted, the Union’s claim is untimely filed and must be disallowed. This result renders unnecessary any discussions of the trustee’s other grounds for objection. Accordingly, we will enter an order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the Union’s claim.
. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law requested by Bankruptcy Rule 7052 (effective August 1, 1983).
. The six months filing deadline was provided by former Bankruptcy Rule 302(e). The current Bankruptcy Rules mandate that in a chapter 7 proceeding a proof of claim must be filed within 90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors called pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 341(a).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
43 B.R. 937 (In Re Crouthamel Potato Chip Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.