United States v. William McBride, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the money’s worth of “meat ■ products” which were never paid for represented the new value for purposes of § 547(c)(4)
• finding that 64% was too narrow a range and a range capturing 88% of the payments would have been more appropriate
• finding that a difference in averages of 5 days is not outside the ordinary course
• finding “the baseline should reflect payment practices that the companies established before the onset of any financial distress associated with the debtor’s impending bankruptcy”
• “Calculating the baseline payment practice between two companies requires identifying a historical period that reflects the companies’ typical payment practices.”
• finding the average-lateness method “better compensates for outlier payments during the historical period” and the total-range method “provides a more complete picture of the relationship between the creditor and debtor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).