by In Langston v. Dallas Commodity Company, No. 24-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed a recurring challenge in consumer bankruptcy practice: what happens when a trustee fails to properly continue a Section 341 meeting of creditors under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2003(e)? While the court affirmed that such procedural failures do not automatically trigger a bright-line rule concluding the meeting, it established important precedent distinguishing between cases where another meeting is actually held versus cases where no further meeting occurs. Most significantly for practitioners, the decision underscores how easily debtors can waive the protections of the 30-day deadline to object to exemptions under Rule 4003(b)(1)—and provides a roadmap for avoiding such waivers.
NCBRC and NACBA Participation
The National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC) and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) participated as amici curiae in this case, recognizing its critical importance to consumer debtors nationwide. NCBRC and NACBA submitted a joint amicus brief addressing the proper interpretation of Rule 2003(e) and the impact of trustee non-compliance on the exemption objection deadline. Beyond the written brief, NCBRC and NACBA assisted debtor’s counsel throughout the appellate process, including providing a moot court hearing prior to oral argument to help prepare counsel for the panel’s questions. Special thanks to April Maxwell of Maxwell Law Group for drafting and filing the amicus brief on behalf of NCBRC and NACBA.
Background
Joseph Langston filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, claiming exemptions in two Individual Retirement Accounts holding over $500,000. Dallas Commodity Company, a creditor holding a $1.5 million judgment against Langston, participated actively in the bankruptcy proceedings. The final Section 341 meeting of creditors was held on May 26, 2021. At the conclusion of that meeting, all parties—including Langston and his counsel—agreed that Langston would amend his bankruptcy schedules, provide additional documents, and that the trustee would schedule a continued meeting date.
The trustee, however, never complied with Rule 2003(e)’s requirement to file a statement showing the adjournment and the date and time to reconvene. No further meeting was ever held. Instead, on March 9, 2022—nearly ten months after the May 26 meeting—the trustee made a docket entry stating: “Meeting of creditors held and concluded 5/26/2021.” That same day, the trustee emailed Dallas Commodity’s counsel confirming his intent to start the 30-day deadline as of March 9. Dallas Commodity filed its objection to Langston’s IRA exemptions on April 8, 2022, within 30 days of the March 9 docket entry but well beyond 30 days from the actual May 26 meeting.
Langston argued the objection was untimely, claiming the 341 meeting had concluded on May 26, 2021, making the 30-day deadline under Rule 4003(b)(1) long expired.
The Fifth Circuit’s Holdings
Two Classes of Improperly Continued Meetings
The Fifth Circuit’s analysis establishes an important distinction between two scenarios involving trustee failures to comply with Rule 2003(e):
Situation A: The trustee fails to file the required continuation statement but does actually reconvene and hold another meeting. In these cases, the court’s prior decision in Matter of Peres, 530 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2008) apparently still applies. Under Peres, courts use a four-factor test to determine whether the delay in reconvening was reasonable, and the meeting concludes on the date of the final meeting actually held. However, it should be noted that the court did not rule whether Peres was still good law following the implementation of Rule 2003(e) after the Peres case was decided. “Today we need not determine how, or whether, the 2011 amendment might affect those factors.”
Situation B: The trustee fails to file the continuation statement and never reconvenes the meeting. The Fifth Circuit made clear that Peres does not apply in this situation: “Because there was no continued 341 meeting, the four factor test we set forth in Peres to determine the reasonableness of delay in adjourning a meeting of creditors is not applicable here.”
When the Meeting Concludes: A Hazy Rule
Langston argued that the 2011 amendment to Rule 2003(e)—which added the requirement that trustees “promptly file a statement showing the adjournment and the date and time to reconvene”—created a bright-line rule automatically deeming a meeting concluded when the trustee fails to comply. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, following the Fourth Circuit’s approach in In re Jenkins, 784 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2015). The court noted that the Bankruptcy Rules set forth no penalty or consequence for failure to properly adjourn a meeting, making adoption of a bright-line approach “imprudent.”
But, for Situation B cases—where no further meeting is actually held—the Fifth Circuit did establish an unambiguous precedent: the 341 meeting concludes on the date of the last meeting actually convened. The court stated explicitly: “In this case the 341 meeting concluded on May 26, 2021, when the last meeting was convened.”
The court rejected the district court’s holding that the meeting concluded on March 9, 2022 (the docket entry date), calling this approach a “fiction that cannot be supported.” Reaffirming its reasoning in Peres, the court noted it had rejected allowing trustees to simply declare a meeting concluded because doing so “would permit a trustee to continue a meeting of creditors indefinitely.”
Therefore, in the Fifth Circuit, despite a disclaimer of a bright line rule, when a trustee fails to properly continue a 341 meeting and no further meeting is held, the Rule 4003(b)(1) 30-day window begins running from the date of the last meeting actually convened—regardless of later docket entries, trustee statements, or email exchanges.
Waiver of the Deadline Defense
Despite finding that Dallas Commodity’s objection was filed more than 30 days after the May 26 meeting and was therefore technically untimely, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to allow the objection. The court held that Rule 4003(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and is therefore subject to equitable defenses—including waiver.
The court found Langston had waived his right to insist on the 30-day deadline based on several factors:
- Explicit agreement to continue the May 26 meeting so that he may amend the schedules, and then he amended the schedules as he stated.
- Negotiation of an Agreed Order contemplating future objections to exemptions
- Taking benefits from the delay
- Intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming the deadline had passed
The court emphasized that “Langston’s agreement to the continuance of the 341 meeting was intentional” and that his actions “both during and after the May 26 Meeting show that Langston waived his right to insist that the objection deadline in Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b) be enforced.”
Critical Practice Guidance: Avoiding Waiver
The Langston decision creates significant risk for debtors who cooperate in good faith with trustees and creditors during the 341 meeting process. To preserve the protections of the 30-day deadline under Rule 4003(b)(1), practitioners should consider implementing the following strategies:
At the 341 Meeting
Ask for the date of the continued meeting on the record if the trustee or any party suggests continuing the meeting. Note, it is not necessary to continue a meeting of creditors in order to collect documents.
Post-Meeting Conduct
Avoid conduct suggesting the meeting remains open. Based on the factors the court found dispositive in Langston, debtors should:
- Send the trustee an email asking for the date of the continued 341 meeting (if not announced at the meeting)
- Not enter into agreements (like the Agreed Order in Langston) that contemplate future objections to exemptions will be filed
Affirmative Preservation Steps
Monitor and document. Practitioners should:
- Monitor the docket for the trustee’s compliance with Rule 2003(e)
- Send immediate written notice to the trustee if no continuation statement is filed, preserving the debtor’s rights
- Raise timeliness in the response if an objection to exemptions is filed after the deadline—do not wait until a hearing
Communications Strategy
Put everything in writing. If creditors or the trustee request additional information after 30 days from the last meeting, respond with language that preserves rights while maintaining cooperation: “The Section 341 meeting concluded on [date]. While debtor is willing to cooperate with reasonable requests, this response is made without waiving debtor’s position that the deadline to object to exemptions under Rule 4003(b)(1) has expired.”
Document all communications in writing and copy all relevant parties to create a clear record of the debtor’s consistent position.
Implications and Open Questions
The Langston decision creates a framework that provides clarity in some respects while raising concerns in others. On the positive side, the Fifth Circuit has established that when no further meeting is held after an improperly continued meeting, the meeting conclusively ended on the date of the last actual meeting. This prevents the fiction that a meeting can “conclude” on a date when no meeting occurred.
Practitioners should be aware that while Langston is binding precedent in the Fifth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit took a different analytical approach in Jenkins. Other circuits have not yet addressed the effect of the 2011 amendment to Rule 2003(e), so the landscape remains unsettled outside the Fourth and Fifth Circuits.
Conclusion
Langston v. Dallas Commodity Company provides critical guidance for consumer bankruptcy practitioners in the Fifth Circuit and offers persuasive authority nationwide. The decision makes clear that when a trustee fails to properly continue a Section 341 meeting and no further meeting is held, the meeting concludes on the date of the last actual meeting. However, the court’s waiver analysis demonstrates how easily debtors can lose the protection of the 30-day deadline through seemingly innocuous cooperation with the bankruptcy process.
Practitioners must be vigilant in preserving their clients’ rights. This means objecting to improper continuations, documenting the conclusion of the 341 meeting, reserving rights in all post-meeting communications and conduct, and affirmatively raising timeliness defenses at the earliest opportunity. The cost of failing to do so—as Langston demonstrates—can be the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in claimed exemptions.