Cox v. American Pan Co. (In Re Meyer's Bakeries, Inc.)

387 B.R. 762, 2008 WL 2047933, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1355, 49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 275
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas
DecidedMay 8, 2008
DocketBankruptcy No. 4:05-bk-70837M. Adversary No. 4:07-ap-07060
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 387 B.R. 762 (Cox v. American Pan Co. (In Re Meyer's Bakeries, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cox v. American Pan Co. (In Re Meyer's Bakeries, Inc.), 387 B.R. 762, 2008 WL 2047933, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1355, 49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 275 (Ark. 2008).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES G. MIXON, Bankruptcy Judge.

On February 6, 2005, Meyer’s Bakeries, Inc. (Debtor) filed a voluntary petition for relief under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On March 23, 2006, the case was converted to Chapter 7, and Richard L. Cox (Trustee) was appointed Trustee.

On February 5, 2007, the Trustee filed this adversary proceeding against American Pan Company (American Pan) to recover two pre-petition transfers totaling $28,702.05 as preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547 (2005). 1 American Pan filed a timely answer denying the Trustee’s allegations in general and raising the affirmative defense of ordinary course of business as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2)(A). Trial of the above-captioned matter was held in Texarkana, Arkansas, on February 1, 2008, after which the matter was taken under advisement. The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). The following shall constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.

THE FACTS

The facts are not in dispute. American Pan is engaged in the business of selling equipment used in the commercial bakery industry such as commercial baking pans, bun pans, bread loaf pans, hot dog pans, and hamburger pans. (Tr. at 10 & 14.) American Pan markets its product to commercial bakeries such as Sara Lee, Inter *764 state Brands, and Klosterman’s, as well as the Debtor. (Tr. at 10-11.) They are practically the sole manufacturer of commercial baking pans and have little competition within the United States. (Tr. at 11.) Their business activities are part of a broader industry of metal stamping. (Tr. at 11.) The product begins as big blocks of metal which are put through a series of presses resulting in the desired commercial baking pan. (Tr. at 11).

Generally speaking, American Pan’s product is sold to customers on a credit term “net 30 days.” (Tr. at 12.) However, American Pan seldom gets paid within 30 days. (Tr. at 12.) It is more common than not that payment is received beyond the 30 days. (Tr. at 12.) Some customers pay in 90 days and some will take up to 100 days to pay. (Tr. at 12.) Collection efforts usually commence when an invoice becomes overdue by 120 days. (Tr. at 12.)

American Pan’s experience with the Debtor was that payment was received more than 30 days after the invoice date. (Tr. at 13.) American Pan did not engage in any unusual collection activity on the Debtor’s account either in past years or in connection with invoices involved in this litigation, and was surprised when the bankruptcy case was filed. (Tr. at 13.)

During the 90-day period prior to the filing of the petition, the Debtor made two payments. (Ex. AP-3.) The first payment in the sum of $14,924.00 was credited by American Pan on December 23, 2004, and cleared the Debtor’s bank account on December 27, 2004, in payment of Invoice No. 92814 dated October 6, 2004. (Pl.’s Ex. 2 & Ex. AP-3.) The second payment of $13,778.05 was credited by American Pan on January 12, 2005, and cleared the Debt- or’s bank on January 13, 2005, in payment of Invoice No. 92807 dated October 29, 2004. (PL’s Ex. 4 & Ex. AP-3.) Payment was due on both invoices 30 days from the date of the invoices.

DISCUSSION

The parties stipulated that all of the elements are present to constitute a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), and that the only defense claimed by American Pan is the affirmative defense of ordinary course of business. (Tr. at 6-7.) This defense is found in 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2)(2005) as follows:

(c) The trustee may not avoid under this section of transfer—
(2) to the extent such transfer was—
(A) in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee;
(B) made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the transferee; and
(C) made according to ordinary business terms[.]

A defendant asserting the provisions of Section 547(c)(2) has the burden of proof to establish the applicability of this section by a preponderance. Official Plan Committee v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (In re Gateway Pacific Corp.), 153 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir.1998); Jones v. United Savings and Loan Assoc. (In re U.S.A. Inns of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, Inc.), 9 F.3d 680, 682 (8th Cir.1993).

The Defendant in this case must prove by preponderance of the evidence that the payments to it were:

1. payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and defendant;

2. made in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the defendant; and

3. made according to ordinary business terms.

11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2)(2005); In re Gateway Pacific Corp., 153 F.3d at 917; *765 Peltz v. Merisel Americas, Inc. & MOCA (In re Bridge Information Systems, Inc.), 383 B.R. 139, 149 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.2008).

Here, the evidence in this case establishes by uncontroverted evidence that all of the elements necessary to establish the defense of ordinary course of business have been satisfied.

The first element American Pan must prove is that the debt was incurred in the ordinary course of business of financial affairs of the Debtor and American Pan. The evidence is that the Debtor was a long standing and regular customer of American Pan which sold to the Debtor, on credit, baking pans for its use in the commercial baking business. American Pan was in the business of selling baking pans to businesses. The evidence leads to one conclusion that the debt was incurred in the ordinary course of business of the Debtor and the ordinary course of business of American Pan.

The second elements of Section 547(b)(2) requires proof that the transfers to American Pan were made in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the Debtor and American Pan.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
387 B.R. 762, 2008 WL 2047933, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1355, 49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-american-pan-co-in-re-meyers-bakeries-inc-arwb-2008.