2016-04-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1982056 ‎(5)‎

• Permit No: C1982056
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 4/25/2016
• Doc Name: Motion of the Debtors and Debtors in Possession
• From: United States Bankruptcy Court
• To: DRMS
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Email Name: MPB
• Email Name: JRS
• Email Name: JLE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Case 16-42529 Doc 32 Filed 04/13/16 Entered 04/13/16 11:43:47 Main Document
Pg6of21
14. Pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor, as debtor in possession,
is authorized to "enter into transactions ... in the ordinary course of business without notice or a
hearing, and may use property of the estate in the ordinary course of business without notice or a
hearing." 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(1). Section 363(c) "strik[es] the optimal balance between the
interests of the debtors and the creditors" to "serve the 'overriding goal of maximizing the value
of the estate."' Habinger, Inc v. Metro. Cosmetic & Reconstructive Surgical Clinic, P.A., 124
B.R. 784, 786 (D. Minn. 1990) (quoting United States ex rel. Harrison v. Estate of Deutscher (In
re H&S Transp. Co.), 115 B.R. 592, 599 (M.D Tenn. 1990)). "The ordinary course of business
standard is intended to allow a debtor the flexibility it needs to run its business and respond
quickly to changes in the business climate." Habinger, 124 B.R. at 786 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
15. The Bankruptcy Code does not define "ordinary course of business." However,
bankruptcy courts within the 8th Circuit have held that a transaction qualifies as "ordinary
course" if it: (a) "is of a type that is commonly undertaken within the debtor's industry," Peltz v.
Gulfcoast Workstation Grp. (In re Bridge Info. Sys.), 293 B.R. 479, 486 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2003);
and (b) is ordinary and consistent with the reasonable expectations of creditors. Johnston v. First
St. Cos. (In re Waterfront Cos.), 56 B.R. 31, 35 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985). See also In re Bridge
Info. Sys., Inc., 293 B.R. at 486 (courts look to "whether interested parties would reasonably
expect[] the particular debtor in possession to seek court approval before entering into the
questioned transaction"). A "fundamental characteristic of an 'ordinary' post-petition business
transaction is its similarity to a pre-petition business practice." In re Commercial Mortg. & Fin.,
Co., 414 B.R. 389, 394 (Bankr. N.D. 111.2009) (quoting Martino v. First Nat'l Bank of Harvey
(In re Garofalo's Finer Foods, Inc.), 186 B.R. 414, 425 (N.D. Ill. 1995). See also Comm. of