Delaware Business Bankruptcy Report: Morris James LLP Lawyers and Attorneys

In re Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. (HLI Creditor Trust v. Metal Techs., Inc., 337 B.R. 49 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006) (Judge Paul B. Lindsey)

The Court presided over a trial in which only the defendant’s § 547(c)(2)(B) and (C) ordinary course of business defenses were at issue.

The Court found that the payments had been made pursuant to ordinary business terms in the defendant’s industry under pre-BAPCPA §547(c)(2)(C) and read the acceptable range of payment aging broadly.

The Court further found that a creditor who insists on a debtor remaining within credit terms established by the parties can do so without taking subsequent payments out of the ordinary course of business under §547 (c)(2)(B). However, if credit terms are altered, such as when shipment is conditioned on advance payment, the ordinary course defense is defeated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del. v. Universal Forest Products, Inc. (In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del., Inc.), Case No. 99-02261 (PJW), Adv. Pro. No, 01-3170 (PBL), 2004 WL 3113718 (Bankr. D. Del. December 14, 2004) (Judge Paul B. Lindsey)

The debtor, Hechinger Investment Company, operated a chain of home improvement stores. Defendant Universal Forest Products was a trade creditor of the debtor, supplying treated wood products for sale at the debtor’s stores. The debtor brought a preference action against UFP. UFP filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting various defenses under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c), including, most notably, a subsequent new value defense under section 547(c)(4). The Court distinguished the Third Circuit case of In re New York City Shoes, Inc., 880 F.2d 679 (3d Cir.1989), holding that in a typical running account scenario like this one, there is no requirement in section 547(c) that new value remain unpaid. However, the Court held that summary judgment was premature absent a waiver of the other asserted defenses under section 547(c), or a stipulation by the parties as to the amount in controversy, because a calculation under section 547(c)(4) must be prefaced by a determination of whether the transfers made on account of new value are "otherwise avoidable."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks