Forbes Sand Company, Inc.

8:08-bk-07296Nceb2 de abr. de 2009

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILSON DIVISION
IN RE:
FORBES TRANSPORT, LLC 	CASE NUMBER
Debtor. 	08-07297-8-JRL
Chapter 11
IN RE:
FORBES SAND COMPANY, INC. 	CASE NUMBER
Debtor. 	08-07296-8-JRL
Chapter 11
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
These matters came before the court on the motions to dismiss filed by both Forbes
debtors. A hearing was held on the matters on March 24, 2009 in Raleigh, North Carolina. The
two debtors are owned in part by the same principal and their operations as debtors in possession
are interrelated.
BACKGROUND
Forbes Sand Company, Inc. and Forbes Transport, LLC (“the debtors”) are in the
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 02 day of April, 2009.
________________________________________
J. Rich Leonard
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 08-07296-8-RDD Doc 72 Filed 04/02/09 Entered 04/02/09 16:28:44 Page 1 of 4
2
business of providing sand and base materials to the construction industry. Jeffery G. Forbes
(“the principal”) is president of the debtors and part owner, along with his parents, Dora Forbes
and Wilson Lee Forbes, III (“the parents”). Forbes Sand mines sand off of real estate owned by
the parents, and Forbes Transport delivers the quarried material to clients throughout eastern
North Carolina. Both debtors filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions on October 20, 2008. On
February 19, 2009, this court entered an order prohibiting the debtors from the use, sale, or lease
of Financial Federal’s cash collateral under 11 U.S.C. §363(e). Financial Federal is a secured
creditor of the debtors. The debtors had no objection to Financial Federal’s motion to prohibit
use of cash collateral, indicating that they no longer believed a plan was feasible. In response to
the present motions to dismiss, Financial Federal objected to the dismissal and requested that the
cases be converted to Chapter 7.
DISCUSSION
The court shall convert a chapter 11 case to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a chapter
11 case, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, if the movant establishes
cause. 11 U.S.C. §1112(b)(1). “A motion filed under this section invokes a two-step analysis,
first to determine whether ‘cause’ exists either to dismiss or convert. . . and second to determine
which option is in ‘the best interest of the creditors and the estate.’” Rollex Corp. v. Associated
Materials, Inc. (In re Superior Siding & Window, Inc.), 14 F.3d 240, 242 (4th Cir. 1994). What
constitutes cause is not entirely defined. See, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy (15th ed. rev.) ¶
1112.01[2][a]. Section 1112(b) enumerates examples of cause sufficient to justify the
conversion or dismissal of a case. However, the enumerated list in §1112(b) is not exclusive and
the decision to convert or dismiss a case remains within the discretion of the court. Id. When a
Case 08-07296-8-RDD Doc 72 Filed 04/02/09 Entered 04/02/09 16:28:44 Page 2 of 4
3
motion to dismiss is opposed, the burden of proof is borne by the movant who must prove his
case by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Woodbrook Associates, 19 F.3d 312, 317 (7th
Cir. 1994).
At hearing, the debtors asserted they were cash intensive businesses without available
credit. Gasoline is a substantial factor in the debtors’ operations. Fuel is needed to operate the
machinery in the Forbes Sand quarry and also for the Forbes Transit delivery trucks. Questions
arose on cross-examination about a series of checks written out of the debtors DIP account to
Jeffery G. Forbes. The debtors admitted writing the checks to their principal but denied any
wrongdoing. It was explained that the checks were cashed to pay for fuel. During the summer
months the cash went to Forbes Transit’s truck drivers. More recently, the cash was used on
Forbes Sand’s quarry machinery in an effort to reclaim the land as required by the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources. No formal ledgers were kept by the debtors to
record where the withdrawn money went. While some receipts were proffered to establish the
funds were put towards the cost of fuel, the transfers remain largely undocumented.
The debtors were further questioned about automatic drafts from the DIP account that
were made by Countrywide. Countrywide holds a deed of trust on the principal’s personal
residence. It was established that the principal’s personal bank account is with Gateway Bank,
as is the DIP account. The mortgage payments to Countrywide were automatically drafted from
the DIP account allegedly in error. Although there was no evidence in the bank statements of
record, the debtors stated that the principal corrected the error and reimbursed the funds to the
DIP account.
Repeatedly, it was asserted that the money withdrawn from the DIP account was for the
Case 08-07296-8-RDD Doc 72 Filed 04/02/09 Entered 04/02/09 16:28:44 Page 3 of 4
4
debtors’ business operations and not the personal use of the principal. However, the debtors
acknowledged that after the hearing on the motion to prohibit cash collateral, their attorney
clearly stated that the DIP account was no longer to be used; yet, they continued to draw money
from the account.
One of the enumerated examples of cause listed under section 1112 is failure to comply
with an order of the court. 11 U.S.C. §1112(b)(4)(E). All of the funds withdrawn from the
debtors’ DIP account were cash collateral, the use of which was specifically prohibited by this
court’s order. The prohibition was placed on the cash collateral in order to provide creditors with
adequate protection. In complete disregard for this court’s order, the debtors continued to pay
creditors of businesses whose cases they now seek to dismiss for lack of feasibility. This default
coupled with the undocumented transfers to the debtors’ principal, suggest dismissal is
inappropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the motions to dismiss are DENIED. The two cases shall be
converted to Chapter 7.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 08-07296-8-RDD Doc 72 Filed 04/02/09 Entered 04/02/09 16:28:44 Page 4 of 4

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.