Payment Under Critical Vendor Order Does Not Bar Preference Liability
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge John T. Dorsey for the District of Delaware ruled that a supplier's receipt of payment under a critical vendor order does not bar the debtor or trustee from pursuing a preference claim to recover amounts paid prepetition to the vendor.
October 14, 2021 at 12:32 PM
8 minute read
As a general rule, the Bankruptcy Code provides that prepetition trade creditors receive distribution on their claims, if any, in a Chapter 11 case only in connection with a Chapter 11 plan. However, over the years, courts recognized some suppliers were viewed as critical by the debtor and needed to be paid sooner in order for the debtor to continue to have access to the goods or services provided by those suppliers on credit. As such, a supplier of critical goods or services sometimes received all or partial payment of its prepetition claim in the early days of the case in exchange for its commitment to continue to provide those goods or services during the case on similar credit terms to the prepetition arrangement. However, over the years, at the end of the case, the debtor or liquidating trustee often sought to claw back payments the supplier received in the 90 days before the bankruptcy case as a preference. Of course, if the supplier had not received the prepetition payments, it likely would have insisted it be paid those amounts as a critical vendor after the filing. And perhaps those payments would have been paid along with the open accounts receivable amounts that were paid in exchange for continuing to do business with the debtor post-petition. This issue was recently addressed by Judge John T. Dorsey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Insys Liquidation Trust v. McKesson (In re Insys Therapeutics), Adv. Case No. 21-50176. Dorsey ruled that a supplier's receipt of payment under a critical vendor order does not bar the debtor or trustee from pursuing a preference claim to recover amounts paid prepetition to the vendor.
|- The Bankruptcy Court authorized payment to the defendants on unpaid prepetition debts as of the petition date, but they later were sued for prepetition amounts that had been paid before the petition date.
According to the opinion, Insys Therapeutics, Inc. and its affiliates (debtors), a specialty pharmaceutical company that developed and commercialized drugs and drug delivery systems, provided development, operational, implementation and maintenance services to the debtors. Shortly after filing their bankruptcy petitions on June 10, 2019, the debtors sought court approval to pay certain prepetition claims in order to maintain their critical customer programs. The motion identified certain the defendants as "critical customers" and requested that the Bankruptcy Court authorize payment of prepetition amounts owed to them to allow the defendants to continue to provide services required to maintain the customer programs. The court entered an order (customer order) that authorized maintenance of the customer programs and payment of the prepetition claims, but the order did not specifically direct payment of the claims.
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 All'In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition
7 minute readDelaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11
7 minute readDebtor-Owner Allowed to Modify Mortgage in Bankruptcy Even if Debtor Is Not Obligor Under the Mortgage Loan
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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