The debtor objected to Proof of Claim No. 35 filed by Frank Blood on April 24, 1992 for $14,415.00 as a general unsecured claim. The proof of claim was filed approximately one month after the claims bar date.

On the schedules, Frank Blood was listed with the unsecured creditors having a claim for $0, but not listed as "disputed, unliquidated, or contingent". Within the year before the bankruptcy petition was filed, Blood had sent the debtor numerous invoices and hired an attorney to pursue collection.

Shortly after the petition was filed, Blood's collection attorney gave him some proof of claim forms to file, but he did not file any until after the bar date.

At the time this reorganization case was active, I required a chapter 11 debtor to send out one of two distinct types of claims bar date notices. One form was to those creditors whose claims were disputed, contingent, or unliquidated, giving a special warning that the creditor had to file a proof of claim or stand to lose their rights to participate in the case or the distribution to creditors. The second form was for claims that were not listed as disputed, unliquidated, or contingent but which would be "deemed filed" under § 1111(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. This form gave a lower level warning saying that, if a creditor did not agree with the amount scheduled, it should file its own proof of claim. The debtor sent Frank Blood the second type, indicating his claim was not disputed by the debtor, or listed as contingent or unliquidated. Thus, debtor's arqument that a claim scheduled as $0 is disputed is weakened.

Harbor Fuel filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Blood claim was untimely. The parties argued the excusable neglect       3 ABR 274  doctrine as recently expounded by Pioneer Investment Services Co. v Brunswick Associates, Ltd., 113 SCt 1489 (1993). Debtor argues that Bloods parents participated in the case heavily and he should have known about the claims bar date.

I view this not as a matter of missing the bar date, but whether an allowed claim can be amended. Admittedly it is a close question when the scheduled claim was for $0, but I am going to treat the Frank Blood claim as a "deemed filed" claim which is subject to amendment.

The criteria for amendment are found in In re Roberts Farm, Inc., 980 F2d 1248, 1251-52 (9th Cir 1992), which holds that this Circuit has a long-established, liberal policy that permits amendments of a proof of claim. See, FRBP 7015. The important question is whether the plan proponent is unduly prejudiced by the amendment.

In this case, Frank Blood's claim is relatively small in the scheme of things. The bar date had only passed about a month before. The plan was not yet confirmed at the time the proof of claim was filed. Balancing the equities, I find that there was no prejudice to Harbor Fuel and that amendment of the "deemed filed" proof of claim should be allowed.

There are no disputed facts on the issue involved, and on the admitted facts summary judgment should be denied to debtor on its motion asserting that Frank Blood's claim is time barred. A separate order will be filed.

DATED: October 7, 1993

HERBERT A. ROSS
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge