Circus Time, Inc. v. Oxford Bank & Trust (In Re Circus Time, Inc.)

5 B.R. 1, 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 282, 1979 Bankr. LEXIS 614, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 458
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine
DecidedDecember 24, 1979
Docket19-20004
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 5 B.R. 1 (Circus Time, Inc. v. Oxford Bank & Trust (In Re Circus Time, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Circus Time, Inc. v. Oxford Bank & Trust (In Re Circus Time, Inc.), 5 B.R. 1, 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 282, 1979 Bankr. LEXIS 614, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 458 (Me. 1979).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FREDERICK A. JOHNSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This proceeding was commenced by the complaint of the Debtor-in-Possession, Circus Time, Inc. for authority to sell all of its tangible and intangible assets free and clear of any interest in such property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(f).

The Debtor’s complaint was filed on December 4, 1979 together with a motion to shorten the time in which to answer to December 12,1979. Said motion was granted.

A summons with notice of trial was issued on December 5,1979. Trial was scheduled for December 13, 1979 at 10:00 o’clock in the forenoon.

Proof of service on each named Defendant has been filed with the Clerk of this Court.

Notice of the hearing on the complaint to sell was given to all creditors pursuant to local Bankruptcy Rule 2002(b)(2) and in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 363(b).

A hearing on the Debtor’s complaint to sell was conducted on December 13,1979 as scheduled and was continued to December 20, 1979 at 11:00 o’clock in the forenoon in order to permit the Defendants and creditors more time to consider the proposed sale.

*2 Responsive pleadings have been filed by all Defendants except Oneida Packaging Products, Inc., Internal Revenue Service, State of Maine and the U.S. Trustee. All of the named Defendants except those named in this paragraph were represented by counsel at the December 20th hearings.

Gregory A. Tselikis, Esquire and Charles Miller, Esquire were present representing the Creditors’ Committee. Richard E. Pou-los, Esquire and Robert C. Robinson, Esquire represented the Debtor.

The facts, as found by the Court, are based upon evidence presented at the hearings conducted on December 13, 1979 and December 20, 1979.

The Debtor is engaged in the manufacture and sale of potato chips and popcorn products. Its products are distributed throughout Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and part of Massachusetts. It also distributes related products purchased from others. It employs about 70 persons, half of whom work at the plant in South Portland and the other half on the road.

The company has experienced a serious cash-flow problem over the past several years. It owns assets, as reflected on its balance sheet, as of October 27, 1979 to the value of $1,081,939.00.

The Debtor has received an offer from General Mills, Inc. to purchase all of its assets, both tangible and intangible, including all of its distribution routes for the total price of $1,190,000.00.

From the evidence it is clear that $1,190,-000.00 is a fair and reasonable price for the Debtor’s assets, and in view of the difficulties experienced by the Debtor over the past several years, is the best possible offer obtainable.

It is imperative that the sale to General Mills, Inc. be consummated as quickly as possible as there is a very real danger that unless the sale is consummated within the next few weeks the offer may be withdrawn.

The Debtor’s cash-flow problem is so serious that it will be unable to continue the business as a going concern for more than a few more weeks and there is a clear and present danger that a loss of two or three of the Debtor’s largest customers to its competitors would be disastrous to the Debtor and its creditors and in addition, would jeopardize the proposed sale to General Mills.

The entities holding major secured claims are the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Oxford Bank and Trust, a Maine Banking Corporation. Each has filed a proof of claim in the following amounts:

SBA $481,254.11
OXFORD 329,164.00

SBA claims an interest in the Debtor’s real estate, inventory, equipment, machinery, furniture, fixtures, accounts receivable, notes, drafts, cash, deposits and other property, including eight vehicles.

Oxford claims an interest in the Debtor’s real estate, inventory, proceeds, a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $20,000 and other property.

Due to the urgency of the need to act on the Debtor’s complaint to sell free and clear, it is impossible to act on the allowance of the Oxford Bank and SBA’s claims before the sale. However, it appears that the price at which the Debtor’s property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of the interest of Oxford and SBA in the property. Furthermore, there is a bona fide dispute as to the interest of these entities in the property to be sold. Counsel for the Creditors’ Committee is urging a valuation different from that urged by Oxford and SBA.

Several of the other Defendants claim to be owners of certain equipment and machinery under lease to the Debtor. The Debtor and the Creditors’ Committee have raised a bona fide dispute as to the status of these entities and their interest in the property. See UCC § 1 — 201(37). It also appears that the prices to be received for property in which these entities have an interest is greater than the aggregate value of their interest. These Defendants are listed below:

*3 Grumman Credit Corporation
Equico Lessors, Inc.
Olivetti Leasing Corporation
Kennebunk Leasing Corporation (now Mariner Leasing)

Three Defendants, Ocean National Bank, Atlantic Federal Savings & Loan Association and the City of South Portland have consented to the sale.

Defendants, Oneida Packaging Products, Inc., State of Maine, Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Trustee are deemed to have consented to the sale by their failure to plead or appear.

Six vehicles leased by the Debtor from Kennebunk Leasing Corporation (Mariner Leasing Corp.) are conceded by the Debtor to be subject to true leases and these vehicles will be excluded from the sale:

i. 1979 Fairmont wagon, Lease No. C-54
ii. 1979 Fairmont wagon, Lease No. C-55
iii. 1979 Lincoln two-door, Lease No. C-35A
iv. 1979 Ford E-100, Lease No. T-40
v. 1976 Torino wagon, Lease No. C-39
vi. 1976 F-350 Cab and Chasis, Lease No. T-26

Two other vehicles leased by the Debtor from Krisway Truck Leasing are conceded by the Debtor to be subject to true leases and these vehicles will be excluded from the sale:

i. 1977 Kenworth tractor, Chasis No. 156851J
ii. 1977 Kenworth tractor, Chasis No. 156850J

DISCUSSION

11 U.S.C. § 363(b) provides that:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 B.R. 1, 2 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 282, 1979 Bankr. LEXIS 614, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/circus-time-inc-v-oxford-bank-trust-in-re-circus-time-inc-meb-1979.