Laserfiche WebLink
Case 16-42529 Doc 23 Filed 04/13/16 Entered 04/13/1611:20:44 Main Document <br />Pg 9 of 32 <br />19. The Bankruptcy Code does not define "ordinary course of business." <br />However, bankruptcy courts within the Eighth Circuit have held that a transaction qualifies as <br />"ordinary course" if it: (a) "is of a type that is commonly undertaken within the debtor's <br />industry," Peltz v. Gulfcoast Workstation Grp. (In re Bridge Info. Sys., Inc.), 293 B.R. 479, 486 <br />(Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2003); and (b) is consistent with the reasonable expectations of creditors. <br />Johnston v. First St. Cos. (In re Waterfront Cos.), 56 B.R. 31, 35 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985). See <br />also In re Bridge Info. Sys., Inc., 293 BR. at 486 (courts look to "whether interested parties <br />would reasonably expect[] the particular debtor in possession to seek court approval before <br />entering into the questioned transaction."). A "fundamental characteristic of an 'ordinary' post- <br />petition business transaction is its similarity to a pre-petition business practice." <br />In re Commercial Morg. & Fin., Co., 414 B.R. 389, 394 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing <br />Martino v. First Nat'l Bank of Harvey (In re Garofalo's Finer Foods, Inc.), 186 B.R. 414, 426 <br />(N. D. Ill. 1995)). See also Comm. of Asbestos Litigants v. Johns -Manville Corp. (In re Johns - <br />Manville Corp.), 60 B.R. 612, 617 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986) (finding that "the nature of the <br />debtor's business prior to its Chapter 11 filing is compared to its course of conduct postpetition") <br />In determining whether a transaction is ordinary, two relevant factors are the type of business a <br />debtor is engaged in as well as the size and nature of the business and transaction in question. In <br />re H&S Transp. Co., 115 B.R. at 598. <br />20. Like other coal companies, the Debtors regularly continue and renew <br />bonds and utilize self -bonding privileges as part of their Surety Bond Program in the ordinary <br />course of their business. Indeed, such transactions are often mandated for coal companies under <br />state and federal law. Because the Debtors anticipate entering into postpetition Surety Bond <br />Program transactions that will be similar to those that the Debtors routinely entered into prior to <br />In <br />