HTML Document View

Full title: Response to 314 Objection filed by Debtor 1 Tea Olive I, LLC. An affidavit or verification. (Andre, Samuel) (Entered: 05/20/2021)

Document posted on May 19, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 6 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

Tea Olive I, LLC d/b/a Stock+Field (the “Debtor”) submits this response in support of its Notice of Statement of Reclamation and Twenty Day Claims (the “Notice”) and in opposition to DCC Propane, LLC d/b/a Hicksgas d/b/a Liberty Propane’s (“DCC”)THE CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY AND PROPERLY VALUED IN THE NOTICE.1 The Debtor properly stated the value of DCC’s Claim as $0.00 in the Notice because DCC submitted its Claim outside of the claims period approved by the Court within its Order.On January 14, 2021, the Court entered its Order setting the deadline for reclamation and twenty day claimants to submit their claims to the Debtor as March 15, 2021. After receiving DCC’s Claim on March 23, 2021, the Debtor reviewed all of its books and records related to the 1 On May 17, 2021, DCC filed its Motion of DCC Propane, LLC for Relief from Order Under Fed.As of the date of this Response, the parties have yet to mediate DCC’s Objection and neither DCC nor the Debtor filed an objection to mediation of this dispute.

Document Contents

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: Case No.: 21-30037 Tea Olive I, LLC d/b/a Stock+Field, Chapter 11 Case Debtor. DEBTOR’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF DEBTOR’S NOTICE OF STATEMENT OF RECLAMATION AND TWENTY DAY CLAIMS Tea Olive I, LLC d/b/a Stock+Field (the “Debtor”) submits this response in support of its Notice of Statement of Reclamation and Twenty Day Claims (the “Notice”) and in opposition to DCC Propane, LLC d/b/a Hicksgas d/b/a Liberty Propane’s (“DCC”) Objection to Debtor’s Notice of Statement of Reclamation and Twenty Day Claims. BACKGROUND On the Filing Date, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor has continued in possession of its respective assets and the management of its business as a debtor in possession pursuant to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. Further general background information about the Debtor and this case is set forth in the Declaration of Matthew Whebbe in Support of Chapter 11 Petition and Initial Motions [Docket. No. 22] and the Declaration of James H. Cullen [Docket. No. 20]. On the Filing Date, the Debtor filed its Motion for Order (I) Granting Expedited Relief and (II) Establishing Procedures for the Resolution of Reclamation Claims and Administrative Claims Asserted Pursuant to Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code (Dkt. No. 14) (the “Motion”). In

1

the Motion, the Debtor sought approval of its proposed procedures for the administration of reclamation and twenty day claims against the Debtor. On January 14, 2021, the Court entered its Order (I) Granting Expedited Relief and (II) Establishing Procedures for the Resolution of Reclamation Claims and Administrative Claims Asserted Pursuant to Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code [Dkt. No. 54] (the “Order”) approving the Debtor’s proposed reclamation and twenty day claim procedures. Pursuant to the Order, any claimant asserting a reclamation and/or a twenty day claim against the debtor under 11 U.S.C. §§ 546(c) or 503(b)(9), respectively, was required to deliver a copy of its claim form, by mail or e-mail, to counsel for the Debtor, the Debtor itself, Second Avenue Capital Partners LLC, and Riemer & Braunstein LLP, no later than 60 calendar days after entry of the Order. (Dkt. No. 54 at 2.) All reclamation and twenty day claims were therefore required to be submitted no later than March 15, 2021. Additionally, in the event that a claimant objects to the Notice, the Order requires the parties to participate in a mediation of the dispute unless a party objects to participating in the mediation; only after such mediation—or an objection to the mediation—will the dispute be heard by the Court. (Id. at 4.) DCC received service of the Order no later than January 29, 2021. (Dkt. No. 324 at 5.) On March 23, 2021, more than 60 days after entry of the Order, DCC submitted its twenty day claim form (the “Claim”) to the Debtor. Within the Claim, DCC asserts a twenty day claim totaling $24,903.70 on the basis of “Propane and propane cylinders”. After receiving the Claim, the Debtor reviewed the Claim and its books and records. Based on this review, the Debtor determined that it held no record of any product received from DCC within the twenty days prior to the Filing Date. Additionally, the Debtor’s records show that all invoices to DCC owed as of January 1, 2021 were paid as of that date. The Debtor accordingly

2

filed the Notice on April 16, 2021 (Dkt. No. 290), in which it deemed DCC’s claim valid in the amount of $0.00 based on its lack of records related to the claim as well as its untimeliness. On May 6, 2021, DCC filed its Objection (Dkt. No. 314). Within the Objection, DCC alleges that the Claim complied with the Court’s Order and appended “ample” documentation showing delivery of goods and right to payment within the twenty days prior to the Filing Date. The Debtor now submits this response in support of the Notice and in opposition to DCC’s Objection and Claim. ARGUMENT I. THE CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY AND PROPERLY VALUED IN THE NOTICE.1 The Debtor properly stated the value of DCC’s Claim as $0.00 in the Notice because DCC submitted its Claim outside of the claims period approved by the Court within its Order. On January 14, 2021, the Court entered its Order setting the deadline for reclamation and twenty day claimants to submit their claims to the Debtor as March 15, 2021. DCC thereafter received notice of the entered Order no later than January 29, 2021, 45 days before the claim deadline. DCC, however, failed to submit its claim until March 23, 2021, 8 days after the claim deadline. Because DCC’s Claim was untimely, the Debtor rightfully stated the value of the Claim as $0.00 and should not be required to pay any portion of the Claim. II. THE DEBTOR HOLDS NO RECORD OF GOODS RECEIVED FROM DCC. The Debtor properly stated the value of DCC’s Claim as $0.00 because it holds no record of receiving goods from DCC during the twenty day period prior to the Filing Date. After receiving DCC’s Claim on March 23, 2021, the Debtor reviewed all of its books and records related to the 1 On May 17, 2021, DCC filed its Motion of DCC Propane, LLC for Relief from Order Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) [Dkt. No. 324] seeking relief from the Order. The Debtor will separately respond to the merits of that Motion.

3

Claim in addition to the Claim itself. After its review, the Debtor determined that it held no record of receiving any goods from DCC during the twenty days prior to the Filing Date. Additionally, as of January 1, 2021, the Debtor’s records demonstrate that it had paid all amounts outstanding to DCC. Because the Debtor holds no record of any goods received or amounts outstanding, the Debtor rightfully stated the value of the Claim as $0.00 and should not be required to pay any portion of the Claim. III. THE HEARING ON THE MATTER SHOULD BE POSTPONED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER. Finally, the hearing scheduled on DCC’s Objection to the Notice should be postponed due to DCC’s failure to mediate the issue before seeking a hearing from the Court. As described in the Order, in the event a claimant objects to the Debtor’s Notice, “the parties shall participate in a mediation, unless a party objects to participating in a mediation”. (Dkt. No. 54 at 4.) As of the date of this Response, the parties have yet to mediate DCC’s Objection and neither DCC nor the Debtor filed an objection to mediation of this dispute. Instead, DCC scheduled a hearing on the objection in contravention of the Court’s Order. Because the Order requires the parties to mediate an objection to the Notice—or, alternatively, object to mediation—before scheduling and holding a hearing with the Court, the Debtor requests that the Court postpone the hearing scheduled for the Objection pending mediation of the dispute. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court uphold the Debtor’s Notice and overrule DCC’s Objection to the Notice.

4

Dated: May 20, 2021 /e/ Samuel M. Andre Clinton E. Cutler (#0158094) James C. Brand (#387362) Steven R. Kinsella (#0392289) Samuel M. Andre (#0399669) Emily M. McAdam (#0400898) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 South Sixth Street Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 (612) 492-7000 (612) 492-7077 ccutler@fredlaw.com jbrand@fredlaw.com skinsella@fredlaw.com sandre@fredlaw.com emcadam@fredlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEBTOR 72949364 v1

5

VERIFICATION I, Michael Wesley, a Partner at Clear Thinking Group, the Chief Restructuring Officer and Financial Advisor to the Debtor, declare under penalty of perjury that the facts set forth in the preceding response are true and correct according to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Dated: May 20, 2021 _____________________________ Michael Wesley

6