Crane Rental Company, Inc.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page1of7

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
District of Massachusetts

Harold Donohue Federal Building & Courthouse
595 Main Street

Worcester, MA 01608

Complete
Name In re: Crane Rental Company, Inc.
of

Case

Docket No.
Case No. 05-43338

Court United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Massachusetts

Date Decision Rendered October 31, 2005

JUDGE Joel B. Rosenthal

ATTORNEYS: REPRESENTING: ADDRESS:

Jonathon M. Conti New England Teamsters 177 Milk Street
and Trucking Industry Boston, MA 02109

Pension Fund

Michael B. Feinman Crane Rental Company, Inc. 23 Main Street
Andover, MA 01810

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page 2of7

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

WESTERN DIVISION
)

In re )

Crane Rental Company, Inc. ) Chapter 11
)

Debtor. ) Case No. 05-43338-JBR
)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case comes before the Court on a Motion by the Creditor, the New England
Tcamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund (the “Fund”), on the Motion for Allowance of the
Late Filing of a Proof of Claim (Docket # 180) and request for a hearing on the Motion (Docket #
181). Crane Rental Company, Inc. (the “Debtor’) filed an Opposition to the Fund’s Motion
(Docket # 192).

Background

On May 17, 2005, the Debtor filed its voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition. On or
about May 18, 2005, the Debtor filed a motion pursuant to Rule 3003(c)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure to establish a Bar Date for filing Proofs of Claim. The deadline for
filing a proof of claim in this proceeding was set for August 19, 2005.

The Fund is a multi-employer pension fund governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1000 et seq., which receives
contributions from the Debtor under a collective bargaining agreement between the Debtor and
Teamsters Local Union 49 and under the terms of the Fund’s Agreement and Declaration of

Trust. On August 5, 2005, the Fund filed a timely Proof of Claim in the amount of $5,719.64 for

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 7

monthly pension contributions owed to the Fund by the Debtor for the months of January 2005

through April 2005.

Following the filing of the Chapter 11 Petition, the Debtor continued to make
contributions to the Fund for hours worked by Teamster employees in May, June, and July 2005.
Copies of the remittance reports were completed by the Debtor. The Debtor made its most recent
payment of monthly contributions to the Fund in August 2005 and as of that time had not
indicated to the Fund that it was ceasing work.

On September 9, 2005 a copy of the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement and it reorganization
plan, entitled “Liquidating Plan of Reorganization,” was sent out to all interested parties,
including to Counsel for the Fund. The Fund alleges that this was the first time that the Fund
was placed on notice that the Debtor was liquidating all of its assets, and would no longer
operate. The Debtor alleges that the Fund should have been aware at least one to two years prior
to the filing, that the Debtor was in the process of winding down its affairs. The fact that the
Debtor would no longer operate affects the Fund as well as the Debtor because of the
Mulliempluyer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. §4001 ct seq. (MPPAA). The

MPPAA imposes on a contributing employer to an ERISA multiemployer pension fund

withdrawal liability! when the employer permanently ceases to have an obligation to contribute
or permanently ceases to all covered operations under the Plan.

Discussion

' The Act “‘requires that an employer withdrawing from a multiemployer pension plan
pay a fixed and certain debt to the pension plan,’ consisting of ‘the employer’s proportionate
share of the plan’s ‘unfunded vested benefits,’ calculated as the difference between the present
value of vested benefits and the current value of the plan’s assets.’” Jn re CD Realty Partners,
205 B.R. 651, 657 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1997) citing Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. V. R.A. Gray
& Co., 467 U.S. 717, 725, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 2715, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1986).

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page 4of7

Status of the Fund’s Claim

The question to be answered by the Court is when did the Fund have a claim against the
Debtor for withdrawal liability. The parties concede that at the time of the Bar Date set by the
Court, the Debtor had not withdrawn from the Fund and therefore the amount of the withdrawal
liability, if any, was not fixed or liquidated. Nevertheless the Bankruptcy Code broadly defines
claims. A claim is defined as a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to
judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed,
legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C.§ 101(5)(A). The Debtor urges this Court to
find that the Fund held a contingent withdrawal liability claim prior to the Bar Date while the
Fund argues that there was no withdrawal liability until it learned that there would be a wind
down of the Debtor’s business. Courts have differed as to which approach is correct.

In CD Realty Partners, the court had to determine whether the claim of the New England
Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund for the employer’s “withdrawal liability” had
been among the debts discharged when the court entered the confirmation order because the
claim should be deemed a contingent claim. Imre CD Realty Partners, 205 B.R. 651 (Bankr. D.
Mass. 1997). In determining that an employer’s withdrawal liability was a contingent claim,
Judge Kenner noted “a contingent right to payment is, by definition, a right to payment that,
because it is contingent, is not yet and may never be a right to payment. . . . it might be said to
exist somewhere on a continuum between being and nonbeing.” /d. at 656.

In order to determine at what point the contingent right to payment was sufficiently along
the continuum, the court stated it “must determine first what event or series of events ‘triggers’
this [withdrawal] liability and then whether the occurrence of that event either was or could fairly

have been contemplated by the parties before confirmation of the plan.” Jd. at 657. The court

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page 5of7

determined that in the instance that the triggering event is withdrawal from the plan, and further
that the withdrawal could fairly have been anticipated by the parties. “One can assume that
sooner or later, every participating employer will withdraw. Withdrawal is sufficiently probable
— if not philosophically certain — that it could fairly have been contemplated by the parties. Only
the date of withdrawal was indefinite.” Jd. at 659.

The alternate approach arises from the Sixth Circuit decision in CPT Holdings, Inc.. In
that case, the Court found that “[w]ithdrawal liability is not a ‘claim’ prior to confirmation.”
CPT Holdings, Inc. v. Industrial & Allied Employees Union Pension Plan, Local 73, 162 F.3d
405, 409 (6th Cir. 1998). The question before the Sixth Circuit was “whether a ‘claim’ exists at
confirmation where an employer assumes a plan’s funding obligations during Chapter 11
proceedings, but does not withdraw until well after contirmation of the reorganization plan.” Id.
at 407. The Court stated that the relevant non-bankruptcy law must be examined to see whether
a right to payment, even a contingent right existed. Jd. The Court found that “a multiemployer
pension plan has no enforceable right to payment for withdrawal liability until an employer
actually withdraws from a plan, leaving the plan underfunded.” Jd. at 409.

This Court finds the decision in Jn re CD Realty Partners to be convincing. This Court
respectfully disagrees with the Sixth Circuit’s finding that withdrawal liability is not a claim until
the withdrawal is made. The withdrawal liability claim by the Fund should have been filed as a

contingent, nonliquidated claim, therefore its filing is deemed late.

Excusable Neglect

Under Bankruptcy Rule 9006 (b)(1), the Court has discretion “to permit a late filing if the

999

movant’s failure to comply with an earlier deadline ‘was the result of excusable neglect.

Pioneer Investment Services Co. V. Brunswick Associates LTD. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 382,

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 7

113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). To find excusable neglect the Court must conduct a two
part inquiry: (1) whether there was neglect; and (2) whether it was excusable.

In Pioneer Investment, the Court found that neglect had a broad interpretation that
allowed courts, where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or
carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control. /d. at 388, 113
S.Ct. at 1494. “The ordinary meaning of ‘neglect’ is ‘to give little attention to respect’ to a
matter, or, closer to the point for our purposes, ‘to leave undone or unattended to esp[ecially]
through carelessness.’ Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary 791 (1983).” Jd. In the instant
case, the Fund alleged that it failed to file a timely claim because it did not realize that the Debtor
was liquidating its assets versus continuing to operate until it received a copy of the Debtor’s
Disclosure Statement and its reorganization plan. The Fund's failure to recognize that it held a
contingent claim, and therefore failed to file the proof of claim before the Bar Date, should be
deemed careless.

The second inquiry is whether the Fund’s neglect of the Bar Date was excusable. The
determination of whether the neglect is excusable “is at bottom an equitable one, taking account
of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omissions. These include . . . the danger of
prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings,
the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,
and whether the movant acted in good faith.” /d., 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. at 1498. The Court
finds that there was no prejudice to the Debtor because the late filing occurred only thirty (30)
days after the Bar Date and before the Debtor’s Chapter 11 “Liquidating Plan of Reorganization”

had been confirmed and even before the Disclosure Statement had been approved. The Plan

provides for one hundred (100) cents on the dollar in payout to the creditors as well as money for

Case 05-43338 Doc 218 Filed 10/31/05 Entered 10/31/05 13:24:53 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 7

equity holders. No measurable delay to the other creditors will result from the allowance of the

late proof of claim. The Debtor had continued to make its regular payments into the Fund

through August 2005. As the Court analyzes excusability, it is cognizant of the fact that the same

party involved in the instant case was involved in the Judge Kenner decision, and notes that but

for the fact that there is no prejudice, the outcome may have been different. The Court finds that

the Fund’s failure to comply with the August 19, 2005 Bar Date was the result of excusable

neglect.

Conclusion
The Court finds that the withdrawal liability of the Debtor qualifies as a contingent claim held

by the Fund. The Court also finds that the Fund’s failure to file its proof of claim prior to the bar date
was the result of excusable neglect, and therefore will allow the filing of the late proof of claim by the
Fund without determining the amount of the claim.

A Separate Order will issue.

Dated: October 31, 2005

oel B. Rosenthal
United States Bankruptcy Judge