HTML Document View

Full title: Motion for Order Reopening Abuse Claims Bar Date for Additional 60-Day Period Filed by C. Davin Boldissar of Locke Lord LLP on behalf of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3 Exhibit 3 # 4 Exhibit 4 # 5 Proposed Order) (Boldissar, C.) (Entered: 07/01/2021)

Document posted on Jun 30, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 11 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

As discussed in more detail below, this Motion is necessitated by the change in law as of June 14, 2021 through an act of the Louisiana legislature which entirely removed prescription for certain abuse claims and created a “window” allowing time-barred claims to be asserted.During the month of June 2021, the Louisiana legislature passed legislation which eliminated prescription for claims based on sexual abuse of a minor. The Bar Date Order set a claims bar date of March 1, 2021 for abuse claims.Specifically, the Archdiocese has stated in pleadings filed with this Court in April 2021 that one-year prescription applied, and that “a majority of the abuse proofs of claims are prescribed on their face because they are predicated on abuse that allegedly occurred several decades ago.”At the time of the claims bar date as of March 1, 2021, the Archdiocese took the public position that abuse claims were subject to one-year prescription and were in most cases prescribed.

List of Tables

Document Contents

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In re: ) ) Case No. 20-10846 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ) THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS ) Section “A” ) Debtor. ) Chapter 11 OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS’ MOTION FOR ORDER REOPENING ABUSE CLAIMS BAR DATE FOR ADDITIONAL 60-DAY PERIOD A HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED ON THIS MATTER ON JULY 22, 2021, AT 1:30 P.M. BY TELEPHONE THROUGH THE DIAL-IN FOR SECTION A 1-888-684-8852; CONFERENCE CODE 9318283. IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THIS PLEADING, YOU MUST RESPOND IN WRITING. UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE COURT, YOU MUST FILE YOUR RESPONSE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NO LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING DATE. YOU MUST SERVE A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE ON THE PERSON WHO SENT YOU THE NOTICE; OTHERWISE, THE COURT MAY TREAT THE PLEADING AS UNOPPOSED AND GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the “Bankruptcy Case”) of The Roman Catholic Church of The Archdiocese of New Orleans (the “Archdiocese” or “Debtor”), hereby moves the Court (the “Motion”) for an order reopening the abuse claims bar date for a period of 60 days. As discussed in more detail below, this Motion is necessitated by the change in law as of June 14, 2021 through an act of the Louisiana legislature which entirely removed prescription for certain abuse claims and created a “window” allowing time-barred claims to be asserted. 1

1

INTRODUCTION 1. During the month of June 2021, the Louisiana legislature passed legislation which eliminated prescription for claims based on sexual abuse of a minor. In addition, the legislation expressly revives previously prescribed claims and includes a three-year “window” (2021-2024) for those claims to be asserted. 2. The June 2021 legislation is a significant change in law and circumstances, and this change took place after the March 1, 2021 abuse claims bar date. The Committee submits that in light of these changed circumstances, claimants should be afforded an additional opportunity to file claims. Claimants who believed (or were advised) that their claims were prescribed may not have filed claims. Now, however, circumstances have changed and any prescribed claims have been revived by action of the Louisiana legislature. Those claimants should be given an opportunity to file claims in light of the changed circumstances. 3. Therefore, the Committee seeks an order reopening the claims bar date for a brief 60-day period and providing for notice of such extension. Jurisdiction and Venue 4. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under the Bankruptcy Code and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and § 1334(a). 5. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a). 6. The predicate for the relief requested in this Motion includes Sections 105 and 501 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules 3003(c)(3) and 9006(b)(1). I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. On October 1, 2020, the Court entered the Order Fixing Time for Filing Proofs of 2

2

Claims; Approving Proof of Claim Forms; Providing for Confidentiality Protocols; and Approving Form and Manner of Notice [Docket #461] (the “Bar Date Order”). The Bar Date Order set a claims bar date of March 1, 2021 for abuse claims. 8. After the bar date of March 1 elapsed, the 2021 Louisiana legislative session commenced in April 2021. In that session, a bill (known as House Bill No. 492) was introduced impacting prescription for certain abuse-related actions. The legislation was enacted by both houses of the legislature as Act 322 and signed into law by the Governor on June 14, 2021. This legislation is referred to herein as “Act 322” and a copy is attached hereto at Exhibit “1.”9. Act 322 relates to any “action against a person for sexual abuse of a minor, or for physical abuse of a minor resulting in permanent impairment or permanent physicial injury or scarring.” (See Exhibit “1” at §1). Under Act 322, such an action “does not prescribe.” (Id.) In addition, following a recent trend in other states, Act 322 includes a three-year revival “window” (the “Revival Window”) that revives previously prescribed claims within the scope of the legislation. Specifically, Act 322 “revive[s] for a period of three years any claim against a party…that prescribed prior to the effective date of this Act.” (See id. at §2.) 10. The creation of the Revival Window in Louisiana follows a recent trend in other states which have passed similar legislation, including including without limitation, Maine, Arkansas and 14 other states, the District of Columbia, and Guam. II. RELIEF REQUESTED 11. The Committee seeks entry of an order (in the proposed form attached to this Motion) with two forms of relief. First, the requested order would reopen the claims bar date for 3

3

a brief 60-day period in light of the change in law, and second, the order would require that proper notice of the extended bar date be provided. 12. As discusssed in detail below, it is simply fair and equitable to afford this additional opportunity to file a claim in light of the dramatic change in law. Before this change in law, the Archdiocese asserted that many abuse claims were prescribed and should be disallowed. Claimants who believed (or were advised) that their claims were prescribed may not have filed a claim. Now, however, circumstances have changed and prescribed claims have been revived. Claimants should be given an additional opportunity to file claims in light of the changed circumstances. A. Legal Standard 13. Under Rule 3003(c)(3), a claims bar date may be extended “for cause shown.” As discussed herein, the Committee submits that the vastly changed circumstances constitute cause to reopen the claims bar date for a brief period. 14. To the extent that the “excusable neglect” standard under Rule 9006(b) applies, excusable neglect is the “failure to timely perform a duty due to circumstances that were beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to perform.” Matter of Smith, 21 F.3d 660, 666 (5th Cir. 1994).1 15. In reviewing excusable neglect, courts utilize a list of four non-exclusive factors including (1) “the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,” (2) “whether the movant acted in good faith,” (3) “the danger of prejudice to the 1 See id. (noting that “Rules 3003(c)(3) and 9006(b)(1) … must be read together” and that if the request to extend time is made after bar date elapses, “the crux of the matter is the second question in Rule 9006(b)(1), whether the failure was a result of excusable neglect.”) 4

4

debtor,” and (4) “the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings.” In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 2011 WL 576070, *3, Case No. 08-45664 (Bankr. N.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2011) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. L.P., 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)). B. The Change in Law Constitutes Cause to Reopen the Claims Bar Date. 16. Before the 2021 Louisiana legislative session, the Archdiocese took the position that “the vast majority” of abuse claims were prescribed on their face. Specifically, the Archdiocese has stated in pleadings filed with this Court in April 2021 that one-year prescription applied, and that “a majority of the abuse proofs of claims are prescribed on their face because they are predicated on abuse that allegedly occurred several decades ago.” [Docket #814 at ¶61 and n. 12]2 The Archdiocese further asserted: “At the appropriate time, if mediation is not successful, the Debtor will object to all or most of the abuse proofs of claims because, among other things, the vast majority of them are prescribed on their face.” (Id. at Paragraph 5) 17. At the time of the claims bar date as of March 1, 2021, the Archdiocese took the public position that abuse claims were subject to one-year prescription and were in most cases prescribed. Therefore, claimants were told (by the Archdiocese) that their claims were invalid.318. However, as of June 14, 2021, there has been a dramatic change in circumstances. Through the passage of Act 322, prescription has been completely eliminated as to claims of abuse perpetrated against minors. Prescribed claims have been expressly revived. 2 Debtor’s Objection to Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ Motion to Compel Debtor’s (1) Production of Documents, and (2) Privilege Log, to the Extent Necessary, Related to Rule 2004 Order [Docket #814] 3 All rights are reserved as to the impact of prescription and as to the assertions made by the Archdiocese. While the Archdiocese has taken the position (before the passage of Act 322) that many abuse claims were prescribed, prescription is a fact-intensive issue. 5

5

19. The Committee submits that, because of this change in circumstances, a brief extension and reopening of the claims bar date is appropriate. C. Precedent Supports the Committee’s Request. 20. The circumstances here appear to be unique, since they include a change in law taking place during the bankruptcy case itself (and after the claims bar date). In other cases, other courts have granted bar date extensions and/or reopening to reflect the circumstances. 21. The claims bar date was extended in both the recent PG&E and Purdue Pharma cases. In the PG&E case, the bar date was extended by approximately 70 days from October 21, 2019 to December 31, 2019. In re PG&E Corp., Case No. 19-30088 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. November 12, 2019) [Docket #4672] (See order attached as Exhibit “2.”) This extension took place due to the extraordinary circumstances and ongoing impact of the California wildfires, to allow fire victims to review and fill out proofs of claim. 22. In Purdue Pharma, the court granted a 30-day extension due to circumstances of COVID-19 impacting the ability to submit claims. In re Purdue Pharma L.P., Case No. 19-23649 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2020) [Docket #1221]. (See order attached as Exhibit “3.”) 23. In addition, it has been recognized that a change in circumstances that occurs after the bar date is sufficient cause to reopen the bar date. For example, in In re Greenwich Sentry, L.P., 471 B.R. 800 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 2012), after a bar date elapsed, the debtor took a new position in a draft plan of reorganization, that limited partner interests would be disallowed if no proof of interest had been filed. Id. at 802-803. Based on this change in circumstances, Judge Lifland entered an order reeopening the claims bar date for a thirty day period. Id. 24. Finally, in Diocese of Buffalo, the bankruptcy court recognized that deference was appropriate to the New York legislature, in enacting similar legislation reviving time-barred 6

6

claims. The bankruptcy court stated: “In reopening the statute of limitations, the [New York legislation] expressed a policy decision that deserves the respect of this Court.” In re Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., 620 B.R. 445, 452 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y. 2020). The court went on to set the claims bar date to coincide with the expiration of the “window” statute as passed by the legislature in New York, stating “Unless good cause is otherwise demonstrated, we should appropriately honor the decision of NewYork to allow the assertion of claims through August 14, 2021.” Id. D. To the Extent Applicable, the “Excusable Neglect” Standards Are Met. 25. The Committee recognizes that in general, claimants who seek to file a claim after the expiration of a bar date are subject to the “excusable neglect” test under Bankruptcy Rule 9006. While this test is generally applied in completely different circumstances (where there is “neglect”), to the extent it is applicable here, it is easily met. 26. In reviewing excusable neglect, courts utilize a list of four non-exclusive factors including (1) “the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,” (2) “whether the movant acted in good faith,” (3) “the danger of prejudice to the debtor,” and (4) “the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings.” In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 2011 WL 576070, *3 Case No. 08-45664 (Bankr. N.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2011) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. L.P., 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); See 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3003.03. (1) Reason for Delay / Good Faith 27. The reason for any delay is clear – At the time of the March 1 bar date, claimants were told that their claims were prescribed and invalid, and after the bar date, the legislature expressly revived any prescribed claims. As one court has noted, “reliance on clear law” is a “perfectly good reason for the delay.” In re Seaquest Diving, LP, 2008 WL 243670, Case No. 7

7

07–32068 (Bankr. S.D.Tex. Jan. 28, 2008) Similarly, the change in law and circumstances is an act of the Louisiana legislature—and not any act of the claimants themselves—and therefore there is no possible argument of bad faith. 28. As the Fifth Circuit has stated, excusable neglect is the “failure to timely perform a duty due to circumstances that were beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to perform.” Matter of Smith, 21 F.3d 660, 666 (5th Cir. 1994). (emphasis added). The change in law is obviously beyond any control of the claimants themselves. (2) Prejudice to the Debtor 29. As for prejudice to the Debtor, courts have focused on whether the debtor’s plan negotiation process is underway or disrupted. Where such plan has not yet been “formulated, negotiated, and confirmed,” there is no prejudice. In re Eagle Bus Mfg., Inc., 62 F.3d 730, 737 (5th Cir. 1995) (Finding no prejudice to the debtor: “We note that Greyhound's reorganization plan was negotiated and approved after Greyhound had notice of these claims. This is not a situation where the debtor's plan was formulated, negotiated, and confirmed before notice was given of a substantial late claim.”) (3) Extent of Delay and Potential Impact 30. As for the length of any delay, the issue is the impact on judicial proceedings. In the Pilgrim’s Pride case, the court stated that “[c]ourts have held that a delay of as long as two years between the bar date and the filing of a proof of claim may be excused, so long as the delay does not have a significant impact on judicial proceedings.” In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 2011 WL 576070, *4, Case No. 08-45664 (Bankr. N.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2011). Further, a nine-month delay was “thus not sufficient in itself to preclude a finding of excusable neglect” and “[t]he critical consideration regarding this fourth factor is not the elapsed time of the delay, however, 8

8

but rather the effect of that delay on the judicial administration of the case.” Id. 31. The Committee submits that there is no impact here on judicial proceedings or the administration of the estate. The parties are still preparing for mediation and case resolution efforts. In addition, this matter has been brought to the Court at the earliest opportunity following the enactment of the legislation as of June 14, 2021. (4) Equity / Prejudice to Creditors 32. Courts have also considered equity and the prejudice to creditors. In In re Eagle Bus Mfg., Inc., 62 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit considered equity as a factor, and determined that “the court ordered ADR program was to blame, in part, for the Claimants' failure to file timely proofs of claim, and out of equity, we will allow their claims to be filed.” See also In re Seaquest Diving, LP, 2008 WL 243670, *4, Case No. 07–32068 (Bankr. S.D.Tex. Jan. 28, 2008) (considering “potential prejudice to the creditor”). 33. Here the prejudice to claimants is obvious and the equities are in the claimants’ favor. The change of circumstances was entirely outside the control of any claimants. At the time of the March 1, 2021 bar date, some claimants were told that their claims were prescribed and invalid. The change in law has expressly revived such claims. Basic fairness (and a respect and deference to the state legislative process) requires a reopening of the bar date. E. Specific Extension and Noticing Requested. 34. The Committee requests only a modest 60-day extension. This brief extension will likely have no impact whatsoever on the progress of this case, since mediation is not even anticipated to start until late September. However such an extension will allow impacted claimants to come forward. 9

9

35. Noticing of a reopened bar date will be necessary. In the recent Purdue Pharma case, the debtor submitted (and the court approved) an “extended notice plan” including “online media, such as display and banner advertisements, Google and Bing keyword search terms, and online search advertisements, and social media advertisements in the U.S., the U.S. territories, and Canada.” In re Purdue Pharma L.P., Case No. 19-23649 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2020); See attached Exhibit “3” [Docket #1221 at ¶3]; and Exhibit “4” [Docket #1179 at ¶23]. The Committee will discuss the scope of noticing with the Archdiocese and will endeavor to come to an agreement on providing notice of an extended bar date, in the event that such extension is granted. An extended noticing plan is included in the proposed order submitted herewith. III. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE for these and other reasons to be presented at any hearing on the Motion, the Committee respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and a 60-day reopening and extension of the abuse claims bar date; and that the Committee be granted all other proper relief under law or at equity. Dated: July 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ C. Davin Boldissar Omer F. Kuebel, III (La #21682) C. Davin Boldissar (La. #29094) Locke Lord LLP 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2660 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6036 Telephone: (504) 558-5111 Facsimile: (504) 558-5200 Email: dboldissar@lockelord.com and James I. Stang (CA Bar No. 94435) (admitted pro 10

10

hac vice) Linda F. Cantor (CA Bar No.153762) (admitted pro hac vice) Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-6910 Facsimile: (310) 201-0760 Co-Counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to be served on July 1, 2021 upon all parties by electronic case filing for those parties receiving notice via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system, and on all other parties requiring service under the Court’s Ex Parte Order Authorizing the Debtor to Limit Notice and Establishing Notice Procedures through the Master Service List via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, to be sent on July 2, 2021. /s/ C. Davin Boldissar C. Davin Boldissar 11

11