When a party allows a specified time period to lapse, before arguing whether it should be forgiven by virtue of its excusable neglect, the party might first urge that what it did before the deadline was close enough.
In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. W. Va., et al., 285 F.3d 522 (6th Cir.), the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that where the granting of a deadline extension would be subject to Bankr. R. 9006(b)’s requirement of excusable neglect, technical noncompliance could be forgiven through the application of the substantial compliance doctrine. The court went on to grant certain claimants preferred status in the disposition of a settlement trust despite their failure to fully comply with a mandatory notice provision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
