  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
The BAPCPA amendments also codified, for the first time, the "prior rights of a holder of a security interest" in the goods or their proceeds. And they eliminated the statutory authority of the court to deny a reclamation claim by granting an administrative priority claim or a security interest, which had been in § 546(c)(2).
The Code does not specify the procedures to be utilized by either the reclaiming seller or the debtor. Section 546(c) only limits the avoiding powers, not the automatic stay, so § 362(a)(3) would presumably still prevent the seller from actually taking possession through self-help (and, similarly, § 362(b) does not contain an exception for § 546(c), as it does for § 546 (b), for example). The seller is therefore limited to making the written demand. The debtor should probably move for relief under § 546(c)(2) by requesting a hearing to determine the goods to which the claim applies, and then provide a lien or administrative claim for the value of such goods. If the debtor does not promptly so move, the seller should probably seek stay relief to force the issue. Both parties are at risk that as time passes in the first few days, evidence will be lost that could establish exactly which goods were still on hand when the reclamation demand was received.
56 In re Rawson, 846 F.2d 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 1988); In re Braniff, Inc., 113 B.R. 745, 755-56 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990); In re Video King, 100 B.R. at 1013.
20
