In re Network 90°, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 87 B 03915
Decision Date | 23 January 1989 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 87 B 03915,Adv. No. 87 A 0421. |
Citation | 98 BR 821 |
Parties | In re NETWORK 90°, INC., Debtor. David R. HERZOG, As Trustee of the Estate of Network 90°, Inc., Plaintiff, v. SUNARHAUSERMAN, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Jeffrey H. Hornstein, Holleb & Coff, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Kate Poverman, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
On March 13, 1987, Network 90° ("Debtor") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Debtor then instituted this seven count Complaint against Defendant SunarHauserman seeking to avoid allegedly preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). Debtor also sought to avoid two postpetition transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 549(a).
Debtor moved for Summary Judgment as to Counts V and VI of its Complaint. Defendant moved for Summary Judgment on Counts I, II III, IV and VII of the Complaint and also cross motioned for Summary Judgment on Counts V and VI.
Subsequently, this case was converted to one under Chapter 7. David R. Herzog was appointed Trustee. This Court permitted the Trustee to substitute himself as Plaintiff in the preference action. Trustee adopted the Complaint and filed an amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment. In his amended Motion, the Trustee seeks Summary Judgment in his favor on Counts III, V and VI, and Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I, II and IV. For reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motions for Summary Judgment are entirely denied, and Defendant's motions for Summary Judgment are entirely allowed.
The undisputed facts are taken from the pleadings, supporting materials, the joint stipulations of facts, and the papers filed by the parties pursuant to Local District Rule 12.
Network 90°, Inc. (the "Debtor") is an Illinois Corporation with its principal address in Chicago, Illinois. Its business operations consisted of a dealership for full service contract furnishings. Complaint ¶ 3; Answer ¶ 3.
SunarHauserman is an Ohio Corporation with its principal office at 5711 Grant Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44105. It is a manufacturer of furniture, textiles, and movable walls for office interiors. Complaint ¶ 4; SunarHauserman's Amended Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue (Def. Amended Stmt. of Facts) ¶ 3.
Network 90° became a dealer of SunarHauserman products in March of 1985. SunarHauserman required that Network 90° provide it with a standby letter of credit with respect to each order, provide for direct payment from the customer to SunarHauserman, or provide that the customer make payment by means of a check jointly payable to Network 90° and SunarHauserman. In or about early July, 1985, the two parties reached the following oral agreement (the "Agreement"):
Debtor's Statement of Material Facts (Debtor Stmt. of Facts) ¶ 6; Def. Amended Stmt. of Facts ¶¶ 10-11.
Subsequently, Network 90° agreed to an expansion of the agreement (the "Expanded Agreement"). According to the Debtor, SunarHauserman refused to sell the Debtor furnishings and equipment needed to fill an order sent to SunarHauserman on July 29, 1986 notwithstanding the original Agreement. Therefore, the Debtor orally agreed to the Expanded Agreement to induce SunarHauserman to continue to sell furnishings and equipment to it. Subsequently, the parties acted under and pursuant to the Expanded Agreement. Debtor Stmt. of Facts ¶ 9. According to SunarHauserman, by the summer of 1986 the Debtor had become substantially indebted to SunarHauserman for orders SunarHauserman had filled that were not paid with joint checks from customers, and therefore the parties agreed to the Expanded Agreement. While the litigants differ somewhat as to the origin of that agreement, there is no dispute that it was agreed to. The Expanded Agreement included the following terms:
Debtor Stmt. of Facts ¶ 9; Def. Amended Stmt. of Facts ¶ 13.
Additional relevant undisputed facts are set forth in the discussion of the individual counts hereinbelow.
In Count I the Trustee alleges that the cashing of Time, Inc. check number 177693 by SunarHauserman constituted a preferential transfer under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and can therefore be avoided. In their joint stipulation the parties stipulate to the following facts concerning Count I:
In its Answer to the Complaint, SunarHauserman alleges the following affirmative defenses:
In Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Def. Motion for S.J.) and supporting Memorandum, it further alleges (citing the affidavit of the Manager of Credit and Collections for SunarHauserman, Mr. Cebula, ¶ 11) that in late January or early February of 1987, SunarHauserman contacted Time, TTM and United, the issuers of the joint checks, and requested them to send the joint checks directly to SunarHauserman....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Lissner Corp.
... ... William A. BRANDT, Jr., Trustee in Bankruptcy, Appellee, ... R & D TRUCKING CO., INC., ... United States, 365 U.S. 265, 286-87, 81 S.Ct. 534, 545, 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961) ... ...