Commentary
Professor Steinberg correctly identifies a genuine problem: bankruptcy courts have struggled for years with determining how much factual detail is necessary before a proof of claim should enjoy Rule 3001(f)'s prima facie presumption of validity. His proposed solution is a thoughtful step toward greater national uniformity.
The article, however, is also remarkably Chapter 11-centric.
Although it acknowledges in passing that individual debtor cases have additional requirements, the discussion largely analyzes the issue through the lens of commercial Chapter 11 practice. That overlooks where proofs of claim are actually litigated every day—in consumer bankruptcy cases, particularly Chapter 13.
Consumer practitioners know that Rule 3001 has evolved dramatically over the last decade. The additional disclosure requirements applicable to claims against individuals receive only passing mention, even though they have fundamentally changed proof-of-claim practice in consumer cases.
Those requirements include:
-
Rule 3001(c)(2), requiring additional information for claims against individual debtors;
-
Rule 3001(c)(2)(C), imposing detailed itemization requirements for claims secured by the debtor's principal residence;
-
Rule 3001(c)(4), requiring specific disclosures for revolving or open-end consumer credit claims; and
-
Rule 3001(d), requiring evidence that a creditor has perfected any asserted security interest.
Those provisions were adopted precisely because consumer bankruptcy courts repeatedly encountered proofs of claim that lacked sufficient information for debtors, trustees, and courts to evaluate their validity. Any comprehensive discussion of proof-of-claim pleading standards should begin with those rules, not treat them as a footnote.
That said, Steinberg's proposed revision to Official Form 410 points in the right direction. Requiring creditors to "Set forth sufficient facts to support the claim" would unquestionably improve the quality of many proofs of claim.
An even better formulation, however, might be:
"Set forth sufficient facts to support the allowance of the claim under applicable law."
That subtle change shifts the inquiry from whether a creditor merely alleges that money is owed to whether the creditor has alleged facts establishing an allowable claim under the Bankruptcy Code and applicable non-bankruptcy law.
For a breach-of-contract claim, that would require more than simply:
-
identifying the contract;
-
alleging nonperformance;
-
describing the debtor's breach; and
-
stating the amount of damages.
It should also require allegations demonstrating that the claimant has a present legal right to collect that amount.
That additional requirement would prove significant in many consumer cases. For example, creditors frequently file claims despite unresolved questions regarding:
-
whether they are the proper holder or assignee of the obligation (including being licensed or authorized to collect the debt);
-
whether contractual or statutory conditions precedent have been satisfied;
-
whether required notices of default or acceleration were given;
-
whether statutes of limitation have expired;
-
whether charges or fees are authorized by contract or statute; or
-
whether the claimant possesses an enforceable perfected security interest.
Simply alleging that damages exist should not automatically entitle a creditor to Rule 3001(f)'s evidentiary presumption if the creditor has not alleged facts showing a legal entitlement to recover those damages.
Indeed, much of consumer bankruptcy litigation over mortgage claims, credit card claims, and vehicle finance claims centers not on whether the debtor once signed a contract, but on whether the claimant has established a legally enforceable right to payment in the amount asserted.
Finally, it is unclear from the article whether this proposal has been submitted to the National Bankruptcy Rules Committee for formal consideration. If it has, one hopes that the Committee will evaluate the proposal not only through the prism of large Chapter 11 reorganizations, but also through the vastly more numerous Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 consumer cases in which proof-of-claim litigation occurs every day.
A revised Official Form 410 that requires creditors to plead sufficient facts supporting the allowance of their claims—while remaining consistent with the existing consumer-specific requirements of Rule 3001—could improve the quality of claims filed in every bankruptcy court and reduce unnecessary claim objections. That would benefit debtors, trustees, creditors, and courts alike.
Blog comments