In situations where the granting of a deadline extension would be subject to Bankr. R. 9006(b)’s requirement of “excusable neglect,” can technical noncompliance be forgiven through the application of the substantial compliance doctrine? In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. W. Va., et. al. (In re Eagle-Picher Indus.), 285 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2002), the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that it could, and granted certain claimants preferred status in the disposition of a settlement trust despite their failure to fully comply with a mandatory notice provision.
Background
This content has been archived.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]
