Drop Shipped Goods Failed to Qualify for Administrative Expense Priority in Bankruptcy
In order for a creditor who supplies goods to a debtor within 20 days before the bankruptcy petition is filed to recover the value of the goods as a priority administrative expense under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor must have had physical possession of the goods and not merely constructive receipt.
August 09, 2017 at 09:02 AM
6 minute read
In In re SRC Liquidation, Case No. 15-10541 (BLS) (Del. Bankr. July 13), U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon of the District of Delaware held that in order for a creditor who supplies goods to a debtor within 20 days before the bankruptcy petition is filed to recover the value of the goods as a priority administrative expense under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor must have had physical possession of the goods and not merely constructive receipt. Accordingly, where goods were delivered directly to the debtor's customers, even though at the debtor's direction and utilizing the debtor's account with the shipper, the goods will not qualify for administrative priority treatment. The decision has significance for a creditor that sells goods to a debtor soon before the debtor files a bankruptcy petition.
Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code accords administrative expense priority to a claim equal to the value of any goods sold to the debtor in the ordinary course of the debtor's business and received by the debtor within 20 days before the petition date. Administrative expense claims are exceptions to the general equality principle in bankruptcy and are strictly construed.
The facts in the case were not in dispute. IIMAK was a vendor to the debtor and its products were at times delivered directly to the debtor. These were “directly delivered goods.” At other times, its products were delivered to the debtor's customers at the debtor's direction and utilizing the debtor's account with United Parcel Service. These were “drop shipped goods.” IIMAK argued that the claim for the value of the drop shipped goods delivered to the debtor's customers in the 20-day period prior to the petition date should be treated as administrative expenses. The issue was whether the shipment of goods during the relevant 20-day period to the debtor's customers constituted receipt by the debtor for purposes of satisfying the “received by the debtor” requirement under Section 503(b)(9).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250