Laserfiche WebLink
<br />incorporates by this refe:s:~ce the facts and analysis set forth <br />in the Motion. <br />Bankruptcy reclamation law places the burden on the party <br />seeking reclamation of goods from a debtor in possession to <br />establish each and every element establishing such party's <br />entitlement to reclamation. Due to the large number of <br />reclamation demands upon CF&I Steel (approximately 33 demands), <br />however, C7?&I Steel has taken the initiative, by virtue of the <br />Motion, with respect to the resolution of some of those <br />reclamation demands. CF&I Steel has determined, applying certain <br />criteria explained below, the valid and invalid demands for <br />reclamation of goods made against it after the commencement: of <br />its bankruF~tcy case. In the Motion, CFI Steel proposes to pay <br />the valid reclamation claims as administrative priority claims <br />and proposes to disallow the invalid reclamation claims as <br />priority claims.z <br />valid reclamation claims entitle the claimants asserting <br />such claims to either reclaim certain goods delivered to CF&I <br />~ Almost all courts agree that the burden of proof with <br />respect to reclamation is on the party alleging the right of <br />reclamation. See e.a. In re Video Kina of Illinois. Inc., 1D0 <br />Bankr. 1008, 1016 (Bankr. N.D. I11. 1989) (burden is on party <br />seeking reclamation to establish each element giving rise to <br />right by fair preponderance of the evidence). <br />Y A:~ explained in the Motion, CFfiI Steel does not seek at <br />this time to litigate with respect to the reclamation claims of <br />claimants nqt listed on Exhibit A attached hereto. CF&I believes <br />that such "pion listed" claims are invalid; however, the Motion <br />does not prejudice the right of reclamation claimants not lasted <br />on Exhibit A or of CF&I Steel to bring proceedings respecting <br />those claim::. <br />I <br /> <br />2 <br />