SIS has admitted to receipt of payments in connection with services performed for FGO.  SIS contends that the services were not secured by any security interest and that FGO did not make any transfer in payment for these services to or for the benefit of SIS and that it is entitled to the protection of the subsequent new value defense. Similarly, SIS contends that it provided such services between February 12, 2001, and April 19, 2001, subsequent to the delivery of check No. 5009984 was January 19, 2001, and that the delivery date of checks Nos. A Notice of Failed Mediation was filed December 9, 2008. On December 4, 2008, SIS filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Affidavit of Betty K. In the Motion, SIS claims that the pleadings and discovery on file and the Affidavit of Mallette indicate that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that SIS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all amounts sought to be avoided, except 8.25. In its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, SIS sets forth that the Debtors were in the business of converting, retrofitting and repairing offshore drilling rigs and that SIS performed nondestructive testing services for FGO. 5009763 issued January 12, 2001, in the amount of ,179.00, that cleared the banking institution on January 19, 2001, SIS avers in its Motion that the transfer does not constitute a preference in that the transfer was not made on or within 90 days before the April 20, 2001 filing date of FGO’s petition. SIS asserts that services were provided between January 22, 2001 and February 8, 2001, and that the value of those services was ,797.50. 5010491 in the amount of ,577.00, and that the value of those services totaled ,418.75. SIS also contends that payments from Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“FFIC”)  that were made pursuant to surety bonds issued in connection with the construction of the semisubmersible oil drilling rig “Amethyst,” do not constitute transfers of interests of the Debtors in property and may not be avoided. The Affidavit sets out that the delivery date for check No. As to the remaining payments, the Liquidating Trustee asserts that there are issues of material fact regarding the dates of delivery of checks and value of services rendered as set forth by SIS, and further asserts that the Mallette Affidavit is inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Fed.
For example, this may be done with evidence that the creditor is in the business of providing the types of goods or services that were provided to the debtor to parties similar to the debtor and that those goods or services were actually provided to the debtor. The actual terms of the parties‟ agreement may also provide evidence whether the payments were in the ordinary course of business but even if payments are late it would not be conclusive. In the ordinary course of business analysis, standard deviation measures how much variation in the number of collection days is to be expected (the typical variation) from the average number of collection days.
#37) filed by the defendant in this adversary proceeding, Southern Inspection Services, Inc., and the opposition thereto filed by the Liquidating Trustee for The Consolidated FGH Liquidating Trust (Dkt. Having considered the matter, the Court concludes that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part as set out below.
OPINION EDWARD ELLINGTON, Bankruptcy Judge Before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. The complaint alleges that FGO made preferential transfers to SIS in the sum of 1,461.50, and that the transfers are avoidable and recoverable pursuant to 11 U.
In re THE CONSOLIDATED FGH LIQUIDATING TRUST a/k/a Friede Goldman Halter, Inc.
United States of America, Department of Revenue, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants. Wheeler, Wheeler & Wheeler, PLLC, Biloxi, MS, Douglas S.