Omega Healthcare Late Claim Motion Denied in Goldner Capital Chapter 11

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Goldner Capital Management, LLC, et al.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 8-24-73789

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (42.3K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
In re:
Chapter 11
GOLDNER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 8-24-73789-ast
(Jointly Administered)
Debtors.
------------------------------------------------------------------X
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALLOW
CLAIM AFTER CLAIMS BAR DATE

Pending before the Court is the Motion of Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.’s
(“Omega”) to file a claim after the claims bar date. [Dkt. No. 325]. For the reasons that follow, the
Motion is denied, but Omega may file its claim as a late filed claim.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
157 (b)(2)(A), (B) and (O), and 1334(b), and the Standing Orders of Reference in effect in the
Eastern District of New York dated August 28, 1986, and as amended on December 5, 2012,
but made effective nunc pro tunc as of June 23, 2011.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 2, 2025, Goldner Capital Management LLC (“GCM”) and several other
debtors filed petitions for relief under Title 11 Chapter 11 of the United States Code
(“Bankruptcy Code”). [Dkt. No. 1]. On October 22, 2024, the Court entered an order
authorizing the joint administration of the GCM case with following member cases: 24-73790;
24-73791; 24-73792; 24-73793; and 24-73795 (collectively with GCM the “GCM Debtors”).
[Dkt. No. 34].
On October 3, 2024, this Court sua sponte issued an Order Establishing Deadlines for
Filing Proofs of Claim (“Bar Date Order”) setting a claim bar date in each of the GCM Debtors
cases on December 16, 2024 (“Bar Date”). [Dkt. No. 9]. The Bar Date Order provides “… that
notice of the Bar Date, substantially in the form set forth in Administrative Order 684… shall be
deemed adequate and sufficient if served by first-class mail with a copy of this Order by no later
than five (5) days after entry of this Order, upon…,” inter alia, “… (e) all creditors and other
known holders of claims against any of the… [GCM] Debtors as of the date of this Order, including

all persons listed on the Schedules; (f) all parties to executory contracts and unexpired leases of
any of the… [GCM] Debtors; and all parties to litigation with any of the… [GCM]
Debtors…” [Dkt. No. 9].
On October 8, 2024, the GCM Debtors provided notice of the Bar Date Order to, among
others, Omega at 303 International Circle, Suite 200, Cockeysville, MD 21030-1359. [Dkt. No.
14].
On June 26, 2025, Omega filed a motion to file a claim after the claims bar date (“Motion”).
[Dkt. No. 325]. On July 16, 2025, the GCM Debtors filed a response in opposition (“Objection”)
to the Motion. [Dkt. No. 351]. Omega filed a reply to the Objection on July 18, 2025. [Dkt. No.
353].

On December 4, 2025, Omega filed a letter requesting a hearing on the Motion. [Dkt. No.
464].
The Court scheduled a hearing on the Motion for February 25, 2026 (“Hearing”). [Dkt. No.
464]. Counsel to the GCM Debtors and Omega appeared at the Hearing. Given the clear record,
the Court determined that no evidentiary hearing was required, and marked the Motion as
submitted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Omega does not dispute that it is bound by the Bar Date. Rather, Omega requests relief
pursuant to 9006(b)(1) of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) which
provides “… when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified period ... by
order of court, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion ... permit the act to be
done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1);
see also Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership et al., 113 S. Ct. 1489, 1495 (1993).

A determination of excusable neglect “… is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of
all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. at 1498. This applies to “… late
filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances
beyond the party’s control.” Id. In determining whether the failure to timely file a proof of claim is “excusable,” the United
States Supreme Court has instructed that bankruptcy courts should consider “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.” Id. at 1498.
DISCUSSION
Omega argues that its failure to file a timely proof of claim is attributable to excusable
neglect, in that Omega claims not to have known that it had a claims against GCM1 until it was
ordered to amended its pleadings in an action pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

(“Illinois Action”) by order dated June 20, 2025.
By way of background, Omega initiated the Illinois Action on April 4, 2023, by filing a
complaint against Apex Construction Management, LLC, Joshua Ray, and Sam Turk (collectively,
the “Apex Defendants”).
On July 23, 2023, the Apex Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss, which was

1 The Court notes that Omega was only ordered to amend its pleadings to include GCM and not the other jointly
administered Debtors. Therefore, Omega’s late filed claim will only be considered as to GCM.
granted by an Order dated November 15, 2023, with leave to replead.
On December 15, 2023, Omega filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the
Apex Defendants.
On January 29, 2024, the Apex Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the FAC, through

which the Apex Defendants sought the dismissal of Omega’s claims and, alternatively, sought to
have Samuel Goldner (“Goldner”) added to the Illinois Action as a necessary party. Goldner is the
Manager of each of the GCM Debtors and the GCM Debtors are in turn the distributing agents
under each of their confirmed2 plans of reorganization. [Dkt. Nos. 410-413, 418].
By order dated May 23, 2024, the Apex Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC was
granted with respect to certain claims brought by Omega, but the Illinois Court determined that
Omega had sufficiently pled a cause of action for unjust enrichment, as well as a cause of action
for accounting and a constructive trust. Further, the Illinois Court determined that Goldner was a
necessary party to the Illinois Action.
On June 21, 2024, Omega filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) by which it added

Goldner to the Illinois Action and brought claims directly against him. The substance of the SAC
involves a series of agreements and obligations between Omega, the Apex Defendants and Goldner
at eleven long-term care facilities (“LCFs”) owned by Omega. [Case No. 25-8108; Dkt. No. 1]. In
the SAC, Omega alleges that the Apex Defendants and Goldner engaged in a conspiracy to (1)
steal Omega funds that were disbursed for improvement projects at the LCFs; (2) submitted false
pay applications, and (3) unjustly enriched themselves during the business relationship. Id. On March 10, 2025, Goldner and the Apex Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the

2 One of the GCM Debtors, GCM Manager LLC (24-73790), has not confirmed a Chapter 11 plan.
SAC. In Goldner’s motion to dismiss he alternatively sought to add SRZ Master Tenant, LLC3
(“SRZ”) and certain of Omega’s subsidiaries who were landlords as necessary parties to the Illinois
Action. In their motion to dismiss the SAC the Apex Defendants alternately sought to add GCM
as a necessary party.

By order dated June 20, 2025, the Illinois Court granted in part and denied in part each of
Goldner’s and the Apex Defendants’ motions to dismiss the SAC. In particular, the Illinois Court
ruled as follows: (1) pursuant to Goldner’s second motion to dismiss the SAC, the Landlords and
SRZ were deemed necessary parties to the Illinois Action; (2) pursuant to the Apex Defendants’
motion to dismiss the SAC, GCM was deemed a necessary party to the Illinois Action; (3) aside
from deeming Landlord, SRZ, and GCM necessary parties to the Illinois Action, all other sought-
after relief and arguments were denied; (4) Omega was “granted leave” to amend its SAC to add
the above mentioned necessary parties on or before July 18, 2025; and (5) the Illinois Court stayed
the Illinois Action pursuant to GCM’s and its co-debtors filing of their voluntary petitions,
initiating the above-captioned chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

The Illinois Court found GCM to be a necessary party to the Illinois Action noting that
GCM was a signatory to various agreements with Omega, the Apex Defendants and Goldner, and
that the tortious conduct Omega alleged “occurred in furtherance of obligations under tho[ose]
various contracts and agreements.” [Dkt. No. 325, Ex. B]. Specifically, the Illinois Court noted
that “[t]he Agreements list GCM as the notice address for Goldner and his affiliates, and most of
these Agreements are signed by… GCM’s VP of Asset Management, as the representative of
Goldner and his affiliates.” Id. 3 SRZ is a Debtor before this Court under case number 8-25-70504-ast. SRZ’s case is not being jointly administered
with the GCM Debtors and is subject to its own bar date that has already expired. [Case No. 25-70504; Dkt. No. 11].
Omega was served with SRZ’s bar date order. [Case No. 25-70504; Dkt. No. 14]. In the SRZ case Omega has not filed
a proof of claim, or a motion to allow a late filed claim.
These same facts were noted by Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in her October 30, 2025, opinion and order
transferring the Illinois Action to this Court, which was then assigned adversary proceeding
number 8-25-08108-ast. [Case No. 25-8108; Dkt. No. 1].

Bankruptcy Code Section 101(5) defines a claim very broadly:
“(5) The term “claim” means—
(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; or
(B) right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such
breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not such right to an
equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured,
unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U.S.C. § 101 (5). Omega knew, or should have known, when it commenced the Illinois Action
in 2023 that it might have claims against GCM, and certainly knew, or should have known, of such
claims by mid-2024, while the motion practice concerning joining additional parties was on going.
Both the Illinois State Court and the Federal District Court noted that GCM was a necessary party
to the Illinois Action because it was a signatory to some of the agreements concerning work to be
performed at the facilities which form the basis of Omega’s claims in Illinois Action. Omega’s
claim that it could not have known it might have a claim against GCM prior to the Bar Date is
simply not well founded. Omega was a counterparty to various executory contracts with GCM and
others. Omega filed a pre-petition suit related to those agreements in which it claims tortious
conduct occurred in furtherance of the obligations under those agreements. As such, Omeag clearly
is bound the Bar Date Order, and it has not demonstrated any basis for this Court to find excusable
neglect.
Thus, Omega has failed to meet its burden of proving excusable neglect under Bankruptcy
Rule 9006 as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based upon the Court’s consideration of the record as a whole in these jointly
administered Chapter 11 cases, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Motion is denied in full; Omega may file its claim as a late filed claim;
and it is further
ORDERED, that the amount of Omega’s claim, if any, shall be determined in adversary
proceeding number 8-25-08 108-ast.

Dated: April 10, 2026 bs
Central Islip, New York = a Ry Alan S. Trust
J Toe cS United States Bankruptcy Judge
gly :