In re Kraska

Russ Kendig

The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and orders of this court the document set forth below. This document was signed electronically at the time and date indicated, which may be materially different from its entry on the record.

____________

United States Bankruptcy Judge

CHAPTER 13

JUDGE RUSS KENDIG

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION (NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION)

On March 1, 2012, Aurora Bank FSB ("Aurora Bank") filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay and the co-debtor stay. No objections were filed. When Aurora Bank submitted an order for the court's review, it contained a provision that waived compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1. For the reasons that follow, the court declines to waive the requirements of the rule.

The court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the general order of reference entered in this district on July 16, 1984, now superseded by General Order 2012-7 dated April 4, 2012. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1409, venue in this district and division is proper. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

This opinion is not intended for publication or citation. The availability of this opinion, in electronic or printed form, is not the result of a direct submission by the court.

DISCUSSION

Debtor's petition lists ownership of real estate identified by the address of 697 West Wayne Avenue, Wooster, Ohio. Debtor is listed as the fee simple owner of this property, which appears to be Debtor's residence. Pursuant to the terms of her confirmed plan, she is surrendering the real estate. On March 1, 2012, Aurora Bank filed a motion for relief from stay and the co-debtor stay. It appears Debtor was solely obligated on the note. Debtor and Joseph P. Kraska, III granted a mortgage on the property to secure the note. The motion specifically requests the court waive any requirements under Rule 3002.1 for both Aurora Bank and the chapter 13 trustee.

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1, which became effective on December 1, 2011, is new. At its core, the rule is targeted to individual chapter 13 debtors with mortgages covered by 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) and "is designed to insure that individual debtors and trustees obtain information necessary to deal appropriately with creditor claims." Eugene R. Wedoff, Proposed New Bankruptcy Rules on Creditor Disclosure and Creditor Enforcement of the Disclosures—Open for Comment, 83 Am.Bankr.L.J. 579, 582 (2009). The judicial conference summarized the need for the new rule:

Proposed new Rule 3002.1 implements § 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, which permits a chapter 13 debtor to cure a default and maintain payments of a home mortgage over the course of the debtor's plan. The rule is intended to provide the mortgagor-debtor information necessary to determine the exact amount needed to cure any pre-petition arrearage and the amount of the postpetition payments. If the latter amount changes over time because of changing interest rates, escrow account adjustments, or the assessment of fees, expenses, or other charges, notice of any change in payment must be conveyed to the debtor and trustee. Numerous consumer bankruptcy lawyers, trustees, and judges have reported that debtors often do not learn until after completing a chapter 13 plan that the mortgage payments have changed. In particular, debtors do not learn that fees, expenses, or other charges have been imposed during the life of the plan. As a result, debtors may face renewed foreclosure proceedings immediately after emerging from bankruptcy. Timely notice of such changes will permit the debtor and trustee to adjust post-petition mortgage payments and, if appropriate, challenge the validity of fees, expenses, or other charges assessed during the bankruptcy.

Excerpt from the Report of the Judicial Conference, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PendingRules/SupremeCourt 042611.aspx (last visited April 11, 2012) (attached as Exhibit A); see also In re Carr, 2012 WL 930337 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2012); In re Jackson, 446 B.R. 608 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011).

Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 2075, the Supreme Court adopted various amendments to the bankruptcy rules, including new Rule 3002.1, on April 26, 2011 and proscribed that the amendments "shall govern in all proceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending." Order of the Supreme Court of the United States Adopting and Amending Rules, April 26, 2011, available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/PendingRules/SupremeCourt042 611.aspx (last visited April 11, 2012) (see attached Exhibit B).

To meet its intended goals, the new rule provides the procedure for a creditor to provide notice of payment changes, see Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3002.1(b), and postpetition fees, expenses and charges assessed on an account. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3002.1(c). Subsection (d) governs the form and content of the creditor notices, while subsection (e) establishes the procedure for determining whether any fee, expense or charge under subsection (c) is allowable. The balance of the rule covers the final cure payment on arrearage claims and effect of a creditor's failure to provide notice under the rule. A failure to notice applicable changes may result in prejudice to the creditor. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3002.1(i).

At first blush, Rule 3002.1 may seem inapplicable to cases where a debtor intends to surrender real estate. Undisputedly, the bulk of the rule is intended to address the cure of arrearage claims. However, the absence of an arrearage claim does not obviate the need for the protections the rule provides.

First, the nature of the claim as secured or unsecured is immaterial to § 1322(b)(5) because that code section covers both secured and unsecured claims. While the claim may ultimately become an unsecured deficiency claim, at present it is a secured mortgage claim secured by Debtor's residence, making § 1322(b)(5) applicable.

Second, Aurora Bank will be filing a claim. As the court sees it, part of the point of Rule 3002.1 is to provide a procedure for the filing of an accurate mortgage claim. Here, this may be particularly important to Debtor because there is a possibility that this is a one hundred percent plan. In this case, the intent is to allow Aurora Bank to foreclose its lien, sell the property, and file a deficiency claim. (Order Conf. Ch. 13 Plan, Nov. 17, 2011). The court can conceptualize situations, including adjustments to an adjustable rate mortgages or changes in an escrow analysis, where payment changes may occur between the date of filing and the judgment of foreclosure, thereby impacting the claim. Similarly, it is easy to understand that postpetition charges may also be added to the account, particularly foreclosure costs. Requiring a creditor to provide notice of these figures will allow parties to examine the basis of the amounts due and challenge the figures when necessary. The information produced in compliance with the rule may be useful to multiple parties. While cure of an arrearage claim may not be at issue in this case, obtaining accurate information for the calculation of the underlying claim is consequential.

Thus the reason the trustee has imposed the requirement of interest to the unsecured creditors. (Ag. Order Settling Trustee's Obj. to Conf. of Plan, November 17, 2011).

Third, the rule does not contain a pass for situations that are outside the norm, like the surrender proposed here. There are simply no exceptions contained in the rule.

For these reasons, the court finds that the rule is not inapplicable to a surrender situation. Consequently, blanket waiver is not appropriate, especially without any foundation. The court therefore declines to waive the requirements of Rule 3002.1.

An order conforming to this opinion will be entered contemporaneously.

So ordered.

Service List:

John R Bates

436 Fair Avenue NW

New Philadelphia, OH 44663-1904

Laurie Ann Kraska

PO Box 241

Smithville, OH 44677

Toby L Rosen

400 W Tuscarawas St

Charter One Bank Bldg

4th Floor

Canton, OH 44702

Faye D. English

Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co., LPA

P.O. Box 968

Twinsburg, OH 44087

EXCERPT FROM THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES: FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE
Rules Recommended for Approval and Transmission

The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules submitted proposed amendments to Rules 2003, 2019, 3001, 4004, and 6003, new Rules 1004.2 and 3002.1, and proposed revisions to Official Forms 9A, 9C, 91, 20A, 20B, 22A, 22B, and 22C, with a recommendation that they be approved and transmitted to the Judicial Conference. Except as noted below, the proposed changes were circulated to the bench and bar for comment in August 2009. Fifteen witnesses appeared at a public hearing conducted on February 5, 2010, in New York, The other scheduled public hearing on the proposed changes was cancelled because the one witness who asked to testify at the hearing agreed to do so by telephone. The advisory committee considered more than 150 written comments on the proposed amendments.

Rule 1004.2

Proposed new Rule 1004.2 requires that a petition for recognition of a foreign proceeding under new chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code identify the countries where a foreign proceeding is pending against the same debtor and the country where the debtor has its "center of main interests." The rule sets out applicable notice provisions and generally requires that a challenge to the debtor's designation of the center of main interests be raised at least seven days before the hearing on the petition for recognition. The proposed new rule was published in August 2008 and republished with a revision in August 2009. As revised, the deadline to file a motion. challenging the debtor's designation was changed from "60 days after the notice of the petition has been given" to no later than seven days before the petition hearing. No comments were submitted following republication.

Rule 2003(e)

The proposed amendments to Rule 2003(e) require a presiding official who "adjourns" a meeting of creditors to file a statement specifying the date and time to which the meeting is adjourned. The requirement ensures that the record clearly reflects whether the meeting of creditors was concluded or extended to another day. The Committee Note makes clear that an adjournment to a specific date is the equivalent of holding the meeting "open" for purposes of § 1308(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Under 11 U.S.C. § 1308(a), a chapter 13 debtor is required to file certain tax returns "[n]ot later than the day before the date on which the meeting of creditors is first scheduled to be held." Under § 1307(e), the debtor's failure to file the required tax returns is a basis for dismissal or conversion of the chapter 13 case. Section 1308(b), however, provides that if the debtor has not filed the required tax returns by the date on which the meeting of creditors is first scheduled, the trustee may "hold open that meeting for a reasonable period of time" — not to exceed 120 days for a return that is past due as of the date the petition is filed — which gives the debtor additional time to file the required return.

Eight of the nine comments submitted on the proposed amendments expressed support. The Office of Chief Counsel of the IRS recommended revising the proposed amendments to require the official presiding at the meeting of creditors to specify whether the meeting is being "held open" to allow a taxpayer additional time to file a tax return, or whether the meeting is being "adjourned" for some other purpose. The advisory committee concluded that requiring the trustee to make this distinction expressly and on the record in eveiy case would subject chapter 13 cases to conversion or dismissal merely because the trustee failed to make the necessaiy statement or unintentionally used the wrong words in adjourning a meeting of creditors. Instead, the advisory committee concluded that it would be simpler and less confusing, and would avoid an unnecessary trap for debtors, to treat a meeting that is "adjourned" to a specific date as "held open" under § 1308(b) and as allowing the debtor additional time to file a tax return, There is no risk that this would create an indefinite extension because the additional time for filing tax returns is limited by statute.

Rule 2019

The proposed amendments to Rule 2019, which applies in chapter 9 and chapter 11 proceedings, expand disclosure requirements to facilitate openness and transparency by revealing potentially divergent economic interests within groups of creditors or equity security holders and on the part of putative representatives of other stakeholders. The proposed amendments require committees, groups, or entities that consist of or represent creditors or equity security holders who are acting in concert to identify their "disclosable economic interests" relating to the debtor. This term is broadly defined in subdivision (a) to include economic rights and interests that are affected by the value, acquisition, or disposition of a claim or interest. The amendments require eveiy such group or committee to provide a verified statement of, among other things, the nature and amount of each disclosable economic interest relating to the debtor. In addition, each member of an unofficial group or committee that claims to represent any entity in addition to the members of the group or committee must disclose the acquisition date of each disclosable interest by quarter and year, unless the interest was acquired more than a year before the bankruptcy petition was filed. Such information is important to evaluate positions taken by these groups and entities. For example, it is important to know that members of a committee purporting to represent the debtor's bond holders also hold a derivative position the value of which is inverse to that of the bonds.

The overwhelming majority of individuals and groups commenting on the published proposed amendments supported a clarified and reinvigorated Rule 2019. During the public comment period, the advisory committee heard concerns from some distressed-debt investors about the potential impact of the proposed rule on certain proprietary business information and about the breadth of the proposed rule's enforcement provision. The advisory committee revised the published amendments in several important respects to address these concerns.

As published, the amendments would have required disclosure of the precise date when each disclosable economic interest was acquired (if not more than one year before the filing of the petition) and, if directed by the court, the amount paid for each disclosable economic interest. The proposed disclosure obligations would have applied to each covered entity, indenture trustee, or member of a group or committee, and to each creditor or equity security holder represented by a covered entity, indenture trustee, or committee or group (other than an official committee). During the public comment period, the advisory committee was informed that pricing information is highly guarded by distressed-debt purchasers who fear that its disclosure could give industry participants unfair insight into competitors' trading strategies. Though the published amendments had taken the conservative approach of requiring automatic disclosure only of the acquisition date and insisting on a court order to obtain price information, the advisory committee was persuaded by the public comments that this approach was still too broad. The combination of market volatility and publicly available price data means that requiring disclosure of the date of purchase would as a practical matter reveal the acquisition price, even if the court did not order disclosure. Effectively requiring pricing information disclosed in every case could discourage investors from purchasing distressed debt, which would be counterproductive.

After careful consideration, the advisoiy committee made several changes to the published rule. The advisory committee eliminated the provision specifically authorizing a court to order the disclosure of the amount paid for a disclosable economic interest. In addition, the acquisition-date disclosure provision was modified to require disclosure only by quarter and year. The information that was eliminated is not necessary to accomplish the primary purpose of the amendments. As revised, the proposed amendments require the disclosure of enough information to reveal potential conflicts of interest. If more specific information is important in an individual case, disclosure could be obtained through discovery or ordered pursuant to the court's existing authority.

The advisoiy committee also added language in subdivision (b)(1) limiting the covered groups, committees, and entities to those that represent or consist of multiple creditors or equity security holders acting in concert to advance their common interests. This revision clarifies that groups composed entirely of affiliates or insiders of one another are not subject to Rule 2019's disclosure requirements.

The advisory committee also added a definition of "represent" or "represents" in subdivision (a)(2) that limits the application of the rule to groups, committees, and entities taking a position before the court or soliciting votes on a plan. This revision excludes from the rule those whose involvement in a case is merely passive. The revision addresses concerns expressed during the public comment period that the rule's disclosure requirements should not be triggered when, for example, a law firm represents more than one client with respect to a chapter 11 case but does not appear in court to seek or oppose relief on behalf of more than one of those clients. There is no reason to require an entity that remains passive in the case to publicly disclose its holdings merely because it retained a firm that happens to represent one or more other creditors or equity security holders.

For similar reasons, the advisory committee eliminated the provision in subdivision (b) of the published amendments that authorized a court to require disclosure by an entity that does not represent anyone else. The advisory committee also added subdivision (b)(2), which excludes certain entities — including indenture trustees and class action representatives — from the rale's disclosure requirements unless the court orders otherwise.

Finally, the published enforcement provisions that authorized the court to determine failures to comply with legal requirements regulating the activities and personnel of an entity, group, or committee were deleted, limiting the scope of the enforcement provision to failures to comply with the rule itself.

Rule 3001

The proposed amendments to Rule 3001 require creditors to provide additional information supporting certain proofs of claim and impose penalties if creditors fail to comply with the new disclosure requirements. The amendments proposed for Judicial Conference approval were revised after publication to refer to an official form that will be prepared to facilitate reporting certain of the disclosure items. Other revisions limit the amended rule's sanctions provision. Provisions of the published rule that imposed certain disclosure 'requirements in connection with claims based on open-end or revolving credit arrangements have been revised more extensively and, as explained below, will be republished in August 2010 for further public comment.

As revised, the proposed amendments presented for Judicial Conference consideration continue and clarify the long-established disclosure requirement that a creditor presenting a claim in an individual-debtor case provide an itemized statement of the interest, fees, expenses, and other charges incurred before the petition was filed. Special disclosure requirements apply under the amendments if the claim is secured by a security interest in the individual debtor's property. In such a case, a statement of the amount necessary to cure any prepetition default and, for home mortgages, a statement of any escrow account must also be provided.

The proposed amendments, modified after public comment, also strengthen the penalties for failing to comply with the Rule 3001 requirements. The provision published for comment generally mandated sanctions for creditors who failed to provide the required information, including prohibiting the creditor from presenting any of the omitted information as evidence in a contested matter or adversary proceeding in the case, unless the court determined that the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The penalty provision is based on Civil Rule 37, which prohibits a party from using information "to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial" that it fails to disclose as part of its disclosure obligations. The proposed amendments to the sanctions provision of Rule 3001 are grounded in the courts' well-recognized authority to control the presentation of evidence used in court proceedings. The sanctions provision, as revised after public comment, continues to permit exclusionary sanctions only if the failure to provide the required information was not "substantially justified or ... harmless"; further emphasizes the court's discretion to determine whether that sanction or any other should be imposed; and makes it clear that "notice and hearing" is required before the imposition of any sanction. The Committee Note specifically recognizes that a creditor's failure to provide the required information under the proposed amendment to Rule 3001(c) is not in itself a ground for disallowance of the claim. The claim can be disallowed only if it comes within one of the grounds for disallowance under § 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

As published in August 2009, the proposed amendments to Rule 3001(c) would have required the holder of a claim based on an open-end or revolving consumer credit agreement to attach to its proof of claim the last account statement sent to the debtor before the commencement of the bankruptcy case. Consumer bankruptcy lawyers, trustees, and judges have long raised concerns about creditors filing bare proofs of claim with little supporting documentation, especially bulk purchasers of credit-card debt. Such bare proofs of claim make it virtually impossible to ascertain whether the claims are valid. Though such bare proofs of claim raise suspicions, debtors' lawyers have little incentive to expend time and resources to evaluate such claims because they generally receive no compensation for the effort and any money derived from such efforts is paid to other unsecured creditors. The trustees often cannot investigate suspicious proofs of claim because of their workload burdens. As a result, despite the lack of supporting documentation, many invalid claims purchased in bulk are simply not challenged.

During the public comment period, many supported the increased disclosure requirements. Representatives of bulk purchasers of credit card debt, however, strongly objected to the account statement requirement. They asserted that the statement will often not be available when the proof of claim is filed. Under federal record retention policies for financial institutions, credit card account records generally need to be retained for only two years. Furthermore, account information is usually stored in an electronic format, and it may not be practicable to produce a duplicate of an account statement. The advisory committee concluded that if there is a less burdensome way for a creditor to provide the information needed to assess the validity of its claim, the rule should not insist on an exclusive, more costly, means of providing such information. This provision was revised to allow creditors to provide information relevant to determinations of the age, prior holders, and other salient features of the claim in a more convenient fashion. The modified proposed rule also relieves claimants to which it applies from the general requirement of filing the original or duplicate of the writing on which the claim is based. Instead, the proposed rule provides that documentation relating to an open-end or revolving consumer credit claim must be disclosed if a party in interest requests it. Because the revisions were so significant, this proposal will be published in August 2010 for public comment and is not presented to the Judicial Conference at this time.

Rule 3002.1

Proposed new Rule 3002.1 implements § 1322(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, which permits a chapter 13 debtor to cure a default and maintain payments of a home mortgage over the course of the debtor's plan. The rule is intended to provide the mortgagor-debtor information necessary to determine the exact amount needed to cure any prepetition arrearage and the amount of the postpetition payments. If the latter amount changes over time because of changing interest rates, escrow account adjustments, or the assessment of fees, expenses, or other charges, notice of any change in payment must be conveyed to the debtor and trustee. Numerous consumer bankruptcy lawyers, trustees, and judges have reported that debtors often do not learn until after completing a chapter 13 plan that the mortgage payments have changed. In particular, debtors do not learn that fees, expenses, or other charges have been imposed during the life of the plan. As a result, debtors may face renewed foreclosure proceedings immediately after emerging from bankruptcy. Timely notice of such changes will permit the debtor and trustee to adjust postpetition mortgage payments and, if appropriate, challenge the validity of fees, expenses, or other charges assessed during the bankruptcy.

Under the proposed rule, the holder of a home mortgage claim must give: (1) a notice itemizing any postpetition fees, expenses, or charges within 180 days after they are incurred; and (2) at least 21 days' advance notice to the debtor, debtor's counsel, and the trustee of any postpetition changes in the mortgage payment amount. To address suggestions for different time periods and concerns about how the time period would apply to loan payments that adjust frequently, the deadline to notify the debtor of any payment changes was revised after the public comment period from thirty to 21 days before the debtor's payment in the new amount is due.

The proposed rule also establishes a procedure for determining whether the debtor has cured any default and is otherwise current on mortgage payments at the close of a chapter 13 case. Finally, the proposed rule provides for sanctions if the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence fails to provide any of the required information.

Rule 4004

The proposed amendments to Rule 4004 provide that a party may seek an extension of time, based on newly discovered information, to object to a debtor's discharge after the time for objecting expires but before a discharge is granted. In some cases the court does not enter a discharge immediately after the objection deadline passes. A gap period — between the expiration of the time for objecting and the actual entry of a discharge — is created during which a party may discover information that would have provided a basis for objecting had it been known in time to object. When the discharge is later entered, revocation of the discharge under § 727(d) of the Bankruptcy Code may not be available based on information acquired in the gap period, because some grounds for revocation require the complaining party to have learned of the debtor's misconduct after the entiy of the discharge. The amendments allow a party in that circumstance to file a motion for extension of time to object to the debtor's discharge even though the objection period has expired.

Rule 6003

The proposed amendments to Rule 6003 clarify that the 21-day waiting period before a court can enter certain orders at the beginning of a case, including an order approving employment of counsel, does not prevent the court from specifying in the order that it is effective as of an earlier date. The amendments recognize the common practice of such nunc pro tunc orders,

The Committee concurred with the advisory committee's recommendations.

Recommendation: That the Judicial Conference

a. Approve the proposed amendments to Bankruptcy Rules 2003, 2019, 3001, 4004, and 6003, and new Rules 1004.2 and 3002,1, and transmit them to the Supreme Court for its consideration with a recommendation that they be adopted by the Court and transmitted to Congress in accordance with the law.

Supreme Court Approved Rules Amendments (April 26,2011)

SUPREME COURT APPROVED RULES AMENDMENTS (APRIL 26, 2011)

On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court approved the amendments to the following rules and new rules, which were approved by the Judicial Conference at its September 2010 session:

• Appellate Rules 4 and 40;
• Bankruptcy Rules 2003,2019, 3001,40Q4,6003; new Rules 10042 and 3002.1;
• Criminal Rules 1,3,4,6,9, 32,40,41 ,-43, and 49, and new Rub 4.1; and
• Reslyled Evidence Rules 101-1103.

(The Supreme Court suggested minor style revisions to Evidence Rules 408(a)(1) and 804(b)(4), as approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2010. The Rules Committees and the Executive Committee acting on behalf of the Judicial Conference approved the suggested revisions to Evidence Rules 408 and 804 on March 31, 2011.)

The rules amendments and new rules were transmitted Congress in accordance with the Rules Enabling Act, and will take effect on December 1, 2011, unless Congress enacts legislation to the contrary. The approved rules amendments and new rules are posted here.

• August 2008- December 2010 Amendments

• Report of the Standing Committee to the Judicial Conference
• Summary of Proposed Amendments
• Controversial Report
• Supreme Court Oxters and Transmittal Letters
• Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

• Transmittal Memorandum (pdf)
• Amendments Incorporated into Clean Version of the Rules (Word) (pdf)
• Excerpt of the Judicial Conference Report (pdf)
. Excerpt of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules' (pdf)

• Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

• Transmittal Memorandum (pdf)
• Amendments Incorporated into Clean Version of tile Rules (Word) (pdf)
• Excerpt of the Judicial Conference Report (pdf)
• Excerpt of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules* (pdf)

• Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

• Transmittal Memorandum (pdf)
• Amendments Incorporated into Clean Version of the Rules (Word) (pdf)
• Excerpt of the Judicial Conference Report (pdf)
• Excerpt of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules* (pdf)

• Proposed Amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence Procedure

• Transmittal Memorandum (pdf)
• Amendments incorporated Into Clean Version of the Rules (Word) (pdf)
• Excerpt of the Judicial Conference Report (Pdf)
• Excerpt of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules* (pdf)

* Contains the "redline" version of the amendments showing the changes to the rules.