Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Analyze/Featured

Audit your proof of claim before the debtor does

Reconciles the claim to the ledger, tests the classification and the perfection, checks the Rule 3001 attachments, and hands back a dated fix list marked amend, supplement, or concede.

About 18 minintermediateBankruptcy, Litigation

Your prompt5,129 characters

Still to fill in: Proof of claim and attachments, Case, court, and bar date, Underlying documents

RoleYou are a creditor-side bankruptcy lawyer who has filed and defended thousands of proofs of claim. You reconcile to the penny before you form an opinion, and you would rather concede a component in an amended claim than defend one the ledger does not support. You assume the objection is already being drafted.What I needAudit the claim below in Case, court, and bar date. It was filed as Secured. Find everything an objection would target and give me a dated fix list.InputsProof of claim: Proof of claim and attachments Underlying documents: Underlying documents Collateral value and source: Collateral value and its sourceHow to work this1. Reconcile to the penny and show the arithmetic: principal, pre-petition interest at the rate the contract actually supports, late fees against the contract cap, costs, fees. Any figure you cannot tie to a document in Underlying documents gets flagged, not accepted. 2. Test the classification against the record rather than the box that was checked. Walk § 506 secured status, § 507 priority, and any § 503(b)(9) component separately, and say which dollars land where. 3. Verify the perfection described in Underlying documents: filing office, the debtor's exact registered name, collateral description. This is the most common reason a secured claim becomes unsecured. 4. Apply Collateral value and its source under § 506(a). If undersecured, strike post-petition interest and fees under § 506(b) and name the value you used and its source. 5. Audit the Rule 3001 attachments item by item: the writing, evidence of perfection, itemization of interest and charges, account statement where applicable. Draft addendum language for anything missing. 6. Check timeliness against the bar date in Case, court, and bar date and say whether your fix relates back or is a new claim needing excusable neglect. 7. Score four axes RED, YELLOW, or GREEN (reconciliation, classification, documentation, timeliness), then a dated fix list marking each item Amend, Supplement, or Concede.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. Is this claim already on file, or am I looking at a draft before the bar date? A pre-filing fix is free; after the bar date an amendment has to relate back, and a new theory labeled an amendment gets struck. 2. Has anyone objected yet (omnibus, substantive, or a claims-agent reconciliation letter) and on what ground? I would rather build the audit around the attack you already have than one I guess at. 3. Where is the case headed (confirmation, a 363 sale, conversion, dismissal) and what is the projected unsecured recovery? Whether a valuation fight is worth the fees turns on that number. 4. Which components can you document today with paper a court accepts: the signed agreement, the perfection filing, contemporaneous invoices, the billing records behind the fee line? Do not begin the audit until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatA snapshot line: total claimed, classification, bar date, days remaining. The four-axis score. A component table of Component | Claimed | Support | Issue | Fix with the arithmetic shown. The classification and perfection analysis. The Rule 3001 checklist with addendum language. The dated fix list. Then the two likely objections and the response to each. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the four-axis score and the fix list, and what you would have told me to amend, supplement, or concede without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If the audit would read the same for any claim in any case, it is too generic. Tie every finding to a document, a figure, or a paragraph from my inputs. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "the claim may be subject to objection" used in place of a conclusion. Do not tell me to consult bankruptcy counsel. I am bankruptcy counsel. - Never invent a Code section, a Rule subsection, a case, a filing date, or a docket entry. Anything not in my inputs is marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm against the docket and the current Code before filing]. - Where you do not know the local claims-procedures requirement or how this district treats a perfection defect, say you do not know rather than reasoning past it. - Do not pad. If the claim reconciles and the classification holds, say so in three sentences and spend the audit on the one component that does not. Length is not value.Before you answer- Did I reconcile the total to the ledger and show the math? - Did I verify perfection as a fact (office, exact name, collateral) rather than accepting the label? - Is every Rule 3001 gap paired with addendum language I could file? - Did I say whether my proposed fix relates back or needs excusable neglect? - Would this audit be useless in a different case? It should be.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Sit down as the debtor's claims counsel with an omnibus objection to draft and this claim in the stack. Name the three components you attack first, the Code section or Rule you cite for each, and the relief you request: disallow, reduce, or reclassify. Say which of those you would settle at a number rather than litigate. Then rewrite the creditor's two weakest positions to survive the objection you just wrote.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Say the objection lands: the claim is overstated by unmatured interest and misclassified as secured because the financing statement was filed in the wrong office. Draft the response. Lead with the documentary record rather than the law, invoke Rule 3001 prima facie validity, concede what should be conceded in the first two pages, and end with the allowed amount you are asking the court to fix. Three pages maximum.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The filed Form 410 with every attachment and addendum
  • The contract, note, or lease, plus any security agreement and perfection filing
  • The pre-petition ledger and the invoices behind the last ninety days
  • The bar date and any case-management or claims-procedures order
  • Your current view of what the collateral is worth and who says so

Watch for

  • Verify every Code section, Rule subsection, and docket reference the model gives you. Sections 502, 503, and 506 are heavily amended and the model will state old law confidently.
  • Local rules, chambers practice, and claims-procedures orders vary sharply on what a proof of claim must contain. Read the case-management order before relying on any attachment conclusion.
  • Post-petition interest and fees under § 506(b) are available only to an oversecured creditor. Claiming them without a supportable valuation invites an objection to the whole claim.
  • Setoff requires stay relief. Assert the right in the claim if it exists, but do not exercise it without a court order.
  • The model tends to accept the perfection filing at face value. Confirm the filing office against the debtor's state of organization and the exact name on the charter yourself.

What comes back

A snapshot line with total claimed, classification, bar date, and days remaining; a four-axis RED / YELLOW / GREEN score across reconciliation, classification, documentation, and timeliness; a component table showing claimed amount, support, issue, and fix with the arithmetic visible; the classification and perfection analysis with any § 506(a) bifurcation; a Rule 3001 attachment checklist with paste-ready addendum language; a dated fix list marked Amend, Supplement, or Concede; and the two likely objections with the response to each.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(After you answer the four questions, say, the claim is on file, no objection yet, plan headed to confirmation with unsecured recovery projected around 12 cents, and you can produce the lease, the UCC-1, the ledger, and the counsel invoices but not the late-fee schedule.)* Snapshot. $284,671.57 claimed | filed as Secured | bar date June 15, 2026 | 28 days remaining. Score. Reconciliation YELLOW: the default interest rate is not supported and overstates the claim by $9,400.79. Classification RED: the financing statement was filed in the wrong office. Documentation YELLOW: no Rule 3001 itemization addendum. Timeliness GREEN. Component audit. | Component | Claimed | Support | Issue | Fix | |---|---|---|---|---| | Principal | $241,300.00 | Lease ¶ 4; ledger | Ties to the ledger | None | | Pre-petition interest | $18,801.57 | 18% over 158 days: $241,300.00 × 18% × 158 ÷ 365 | Lease ¶ 7 sets 9% absent a default notice, and no 10-day notice appears in the record. $241,300.00 × 9% × 158 ÷ 365 = $9,400.78 | Reduce to $9,400.78; preserve the default-rate argument for the adequate-protection motion | | Late fees | $4,820.00 | Internal schedule | Schedule not attached; the lease caps late fees at $250/month, and 9 months accrued = $2,250 | Reduce to $2,250 | | Pre-petition fees | $14,750.00 | Counsel invoices | Reasonableness support incomplete | Attach billing records as an addendum exhibit | | Post-petition interest | $5,000.00 | Asserted under § 506(b) | Available only if oversecured; collateral estimated at $96,000 against $241,300 principal | Strike | Classification and perfection. The lease grants a security interest in 14 ovens located in Houston. The debtor is a Texas corporation. Under UCC § 9-307(e) the place to perfect against a registered organization is its state of organization: Texas. The financing statement was filed in Delaware. The security interest is unperfected and vulnerable under § 544(a)(1). The claim should be restated as general unsecured, with a § 503(b)(9) component of roughly $11,400 for goods delivered in the twenty days before the petition (invoices dated 4/3, 4/8, and 4/12). Rule 3001 checklist. Lease: attached. UCC-1: attached but defective. Itemization of interest and charges: missing. Paste-ready addendum: "Addendum: Itemization of Interest and Charges. Pre-petition interest at 9% per annum on principal of $241,300.00 for the 158 days from November 14, 2024 through the petition date of April 21, 2025: $9,400.78. Late fees per Lease ¶ 7, capped at $250 per month for nine months: $2,250. Attorneys' fees and costs supported by the billing records at Exhibit C." Account statement: not applicable. Fix list before June 15. 1. File an amended claim restating the total at $267,700.78: $256,300.78 general unsecured and $11,400.00 as § 503(b)(9). *Amend: relates back; same transaction, same underlying debt, corrected classification and corrected arithmetic.* 2. Attach the Rule 3001 itemization addendum above. *Supplement.* 3. Reduce interest to $9,400.78 and late fees to $2,250.00; strike the $5,000.00 post-petition interest. *Concede.* 4. Assert the $6,200 setoff right in the addendum without exercising it. *Supplement.* Two objections you should expect. First, defective perfection: concede it by amending proactively; conceding it yourself is worth more than losing it. Second, overstated interest and fees: concede the reduction and defend the remainder on the lease text. Restated claim is $267,700.78: principal $241,300.00, interest $9,400.78, late fees $2,250.00, fees $14,750.00. Expect the fee line to take a reasonableness haircut, which puts the allowed number between roughly $253,000 and $267,700, of which $11,400.00 is administrative and the remainder general unsecured. What your answers changed. The 12-cent projected unsecured recovery is what makes the perfection defect worth conceding rather than litigating. At 60 cents the Delaware filing is worth a fight over UCC § 9-307(e) and this memo would tell you to hold the secured position and order an appraisal. That the claim is already on file is why every item on the fix list is framed as amend-and-relate-back rather than "correct it before you file," and it is why item 1 carries the relation-back sentence at all. Your answer that no objection has landed yet changed nothing in the audit, but it is why item 1 is proactive: conceding perfection before they move is worth materially more than conceding it after. Your documentation answer only confirmed what the exhibit list already showed.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Reconcile first, opine second.** Principal, interest at the rate the contract actually supports, fees against the contract cap, costs. Show the arithmetic. 2. **Classification is where claims die.** Secured under § 506, priority under § 507, twenty-day goods under § 503(b)(9). Test each separately and split the claim if it splits. 3. **Perfection is a fact, not a label.** Filing office, exact registered debtor name, collateral description. Defects here convert a secured claim to unsecured. 4. **Value drives § 506.** Undersecured means bifurcation under § 506(a) and no post-petition interest or fees under § 506(b). 5. **Rule 3001 attachments carry prima facie validity.** The writing, evidence of perfection, itemization of interest and charges, account statement where applicable. 6. **Amendment or new claim.** After the bar date, relation back is the whole fight. A new theory labeled an amendment gets struck. 7. **Score, then fix.** Reconciliation, classification, documentation, timeliness: each RED, YELLOW, or GREEN, each with a dated action.