  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
dealing with other, similarly situated parties. When the original agreement between the parties has been revised, both the pre-revision and post-revision arrangements are relevant to determining whether the debt was incurred in the ordinary course of business. Summary judgment was inappropriate, however, because no evidence was submitted as to whether the original agreement was arms-length, routine and ordinary. Additionally, although creditor submitted a declaration indicating that it frequently uses the threat of litigation as a means of revising payment agreements, no evidence established that the particular revision between creditor and debtor was, in that respect, entered into in the ordinary course of business.)
Gulfcoast Workstation Corp. v. Peltz (In re Bridge Info. Sys. Inc.), 460 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. June 23, 2006) (Transferee failed to establish ordinary business term prong of the ordinary course defense to a preference action under § 547(c)(2). Debtor's pre-petition payments included remittance advice - directing the invoices to which the transferee was to apply the debtor's payments. Transferee's evidence at trial related to the ordinary course of business between the debtor and transferee, but did not prove whether the use of remittance advice was the prevailing practice among similarly situated members of the industry.)
In the Matter of Ramba, Inc., 437 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. Jan. 23, 2006) (Because debtor had no equity in fully secured collateral, debtor's sale of the collateral two months prior to filing bankruptcy did not constitute a preferential transfer of "an interest of the debtor in property" pursuant to § 547(b). A separate payment, which was a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property, was not in the ordinary course of business pursuant to § 547(c)(2), because the invoices paid were more than 180 days old in the context of an industry standard of 120 days, which was a significant difference.)
Leidenheimer Baking Co., Ltd. v. Sharp (In re SGSM Acquisition Co., LLC), 439 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. Feb. 6, 2006) (None of debtor's pre-petition payments to suppliers qualified for ordinary course of business defense, but some such payments qualified for subsequent advance defense. Suppliers did not qualify for ordinary course of business defense because they did not offer admissible proof that the payments were made according to ordinary business terms under § 547(c)(2)(C). A series of payments and shipments had occurred, and, under subsequent advance defense pursuant to § 547(c)(4), suppliers were entitled to have excess new value cancel out prior payments still exposed as preferences. Supplier was also entitled to credit against preference liability for refund that supplier gave debtor for worthless goods that debtor returned during preference period.)
In re Bridge Information Systems, Inc., 447 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. May 18, 2006) (Preference defendant did not offer evidence sufficient to prove subjective and objective elements of ordinary course of business defense pursuant to pre-BAPCPA § 547(c)(2)(B) and -(C). Testimony regarding the defendant's dealings in the industry did not constitute evidence of the ordinary business
