  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
subject to avoidance.
In Holmes Environmental, Inc. v. Sunset Banks, Inc. (In re Holmes Environmental, Inc.), 287 B.R. 363 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2002), the execution of a subcontract and escrow agreement and deposit of proceeds in escrow resulted in finding that proceeds were not property of the estate and therefore were not subject to avoidance. In MicroAge, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (In re Microage Corp.), 288 B.R. 855 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003), the Court analyzes whether advertising credits were property of the estate and concludes that cancellation of advertising credits is not avoidable because the cancellation was beneficial to the debtor and not detrimental to the debtor.
In Spradlin v. Jarvis (In re Tri-City Turf Club, Inc.), 323 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2003), a materialmen's act of reclaiming steel was not a preferential transfer because debtor never acquired a sufficient ownership of the steel. Agreement was between the contractor and the materialmen and the debtor acquired no rights in the steel superior to its contractor. Plaintiff failed to show that steel was "property of the debtor." In Advanced Testing Technologies, Inc. v. Desmond (In re Computer Engineering Associates, Inc.), 337 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2003), funds received from ultimate customer by Debtor's subcontractor were not preferential because Debtor's assignment to the subcontractor of all rights, title and interest to the contract accounts receivable was valid under relevant state law.
The Court in Lyon v. Contech Construction Products, Inc. (In re Computrex, Inc.), 403 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2005) considered a fact situation where, pursuant to a contract between debtor and manufacturer, debtor served as a disbursing agent by processing and paying invoices from manufacturer's carriers. Manufacturer would wire funds to debtor for the payment to manufacturer's carriers that were commingled with debtor's other funds prior to payment of the carrier's invoices. The Court held that, despite the debtor's policy of "floating" various carriers' checks after issuance, the debtor served as a mere disbursing agent and did not exercise sufficient dominion and control over manufacturer's funds for inclusion in
