In re TSAWD Holdings, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
574 B.R. 482, 2017 WL 4179817 (2017)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
In March 2016, TSA Stores, Inc. (TSA), a sporting goods and retail apparel store, filed for bankruptcy. Several creditors sought to recover from TSA’s estate: TSAWD Holdings, Inc., including O2Cool, a designer, manufacturer, and distributor of sporting goods; and Yusen along with several of its affiliates, including OOCL and Orient Overseas Container Line Limited (Orient Overseas), TSA’s logistics and supply-chain management vendors. In the months leading up to TSA’s filing, O2Cool delivered several shipments to one of TSA’s logistics vendors pursuant to an agreement between O2Cool and TSA. The goods made it through the supply chain, passing through several vendors, and ended up aboard Orient Overseas’ vessels for delivery to TSA. A nonnegotiable bill of lading issued by Orient Overseas listed the vendor who consolidated and crated the goods as the consignor instead of their manufacturer, O2Cool. After learning of TSA’s bankruptcy filing, O2Cool sent five stop-shipment notices to Yusen, which did not possess the goods at the time of notice. O2Cool then sent a notice to OOCL, which OOCL acknowledged but did not obey. TSA eventually took possession of the goods, and they were sold by its estate to pay creditors in its bankruptcy proceeding. TSA and Yusen filed a joint motion for summary judgement to determine rights to goods shipped from O2Cool to TSA.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walrath, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.