[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-12907 March 31, 2005
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
D. C. Docket No. 03-22180-CIV CLERK
BKCY No. 94-10202-BKC-AJ
IN RE: BANCO LATINO INTERNATIONAL,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
BANCO LATINO INTERNATIONAL,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GUSTAVO A. GOMEZ LOPEZ,
MARIA TERESA PULGAR,
GIACOMO LEON,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 31, 2005)
Before BLACK and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Missouri, sitting by designation.
Appellants argue the district court erred in denying their indemnification
claims against Banco Latino International (“BLI”) because it improperly relied on
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship., 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct.
1489 (1993). We disagree and affirm the well-reasoned district court decision
reported at 310 B.R. 780 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
I. BACKGROUND
Appellee BLI was an Edge Act Bank operating in the state of Florida. On
January 19, 1994, BLI filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court set August 9, 1994 as the claims
bar date.
Appellants were pre-bankruptcy directors and/or officers of BLI. BLI’s
June 1994 Disclosure Statements placed Appellants on notice that it may file civil
claims against them for wrongful conduct committed while acting as directors
and/or officers, and BLI subsequently did in 1995. See Banco Latino v. Gomez
Lopez, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 1998). BLI’s claims were not successful
though and Appellants’ motions for summary judgment were granted. See Banco
Latino Int’l. v. Gomez Lopez, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
Pursuant to BLI’s corporate by-laws, Appellants would have been entitled to
indemnification for the costs and expenses of defending that lawsuit. However,
2
Appellants did not file a claim for indemnification by the claims bar date, instead
filing their claims more than five years after the deadline. Banco Latino Int’l. v.
Gomez Lopez, 310 B.R. 780, 785 (S.D. Fla. 2004).
The bankruptcy court granted Appellants’ motion for allowance and
payment of their indemnification claims. In re Banco Latino Int’l., Case No. 94-
10202-BKC-AJC (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2003). Yet, the bankruptcy court did not
mention, let alone distinguish, the present case from Pioneer. The district court
reversed the bankruptcy court’s order, relying on Pioneer and noting it was the
“seminal case on the issue.” Banco Latino, 310 B.R. at 784.
II. DISCUSSION
The district court aptly summarized Pioneer, stating:
In Pioneer, the Supreme Court explained that Rule 3003(c) of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure sets out the requirements for
filing proofs of claim in . . . Chapter 11 Reorganization cases, and
explicitly held that Rule 9006(b)(1) must be construed to govern the
permissibility of late filings in Chapter 11 bankruptcies. Bankruptcy
Rule 9006(b) empowers a bankruptcy court to permit a late filing if
the movant’s failure to comply with an earlier deadline was the result
of excusable neglect.
Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Appellants’ attempt to avoid
application of Pioneer is unavailing; the cases cited in support of their argument
are inapplicable as indicated by the district court. See id. at 785–86. If
3
Appellants, like anyone else, wish to file claims after the claims bar date in a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then they must demonstrate that their failure to file timely
claims was the result of excusable neglect. As Appellants have not even attempted
to argue excusable neglect to this Court, we agree with the district court that the
“late filing of the claims should not have been allowed.” Id. at 785.
AFFIRMED.
4