Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01777/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01777-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Canfor Wood Products Marketing
Appellee
Payless Cashways
Not Party
Silverman Consulting
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1777

___________

In re: Payless Cashways, Inc. *

*

Debtor *

________________________ *

*

Silverman Consulting, Inc., *

Chapter 11 Trustee for Payless *

Cashways, Inc., * Appeal from the United States

* Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Appellant, *

* [PUBLISHED]

v. *

*

Canfor Wood Products Marketing, *

doing business as Canadian Forest *

Products Ltd., doing business as *

Canfor U.S.A. Corp., doing business *

as Canfor Panel & Fibre Marketing *

Ltd., *

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2004

 Filed: January 18, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-1777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1856032 
1

The Honorable Arthur B. Federman, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

2

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel consisted of the Honorable Barry S.

Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth Circuit; the Honorable

Nancy C. Dreher, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth Circuit; and the

Honorable Timothy J. Mahoney, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth

Circuit. The Honorable Nancy C. Dreher wrote the opinion for the panel.

-2-

In this bankruptcy action, plaintiff-appellant Silverman Consulting, Inc.

(Silverman), the Chapter 11 trustee for debtor Payless Cashways, Inc. (Payless),

sought to recover, as preferential, four payments Payless made to defendant-appellee

Canfor Corp. and Canfor Wood Products Marketing Ltd. (collectively Canfor).

Canfor asserted the defense of contemporaneous exchange for new value under 11

U.S.C. § 547(c)(1). The bankruptcy court1

 ruled that Silverman cannot recover the

transfers made to Canfor, because Canfor met its burden of proof to establish that the

transfers were for new value in a contemporaneous exchange transaction and thus

were not avoidable. In re Payless Cashways, Inc., Case No. 01-42643 (Bankr. W. D.

Mo. Aug. 13, 2003). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP)2

 affirmed the

bankruptcy court’s decision. In re Payless Cashways, Inc., 306 B.R. 243 (8th Cir.

BAP 2004). 

Silverman appeals contending that the parties intended the transfers to be credit

transactions. Silverman also contends no contemporaneous exchange occurred and

that new value was not given upon delivery of the lumber orders.

The bankruptcy court and the BAP analyzed the transactions in question

between debtor Payless and Canfor and both courts agreed that Silverman cannot

avoid the transfers. 

We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error and review de

novo the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court and the BAP. Blackwell v. Lurie

Appellate Case: 04-1777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1856032 
-3-

(In re Popkin & Stern), 223 F.3d 764, 765 (8th Cir. 2000). After carefully reviewing

this case, we see no clearly erroneous findings and conclude the BAP thoroughly

analyzed the issues and properly applied the law. The BAP has written a

comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion covering all issues presented on this appeal,

with which we agree. Our elaboration on that opinion would serve no purpose.

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the BAP’s published opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1777 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2005 Entry ID: 1856032