I didn't say that and didn't mean for you to infer it.
From the documents provided, Kroger returned product to SPNG. The reason, again from the documents, was not specified except for the phrase "VENDOR UNDER REVIEW" appearing in the middle of one of them.
The defective issue was part of the example that you provided and to which I was responding: "In your example, if your company filed bankruptcy......resulting in the absence of a "future invoice"..... Kroger would file a claim in your proceedings, just as was done here."
The key phrase being "the absence of a "future invoice"".
Kroeger deciding it didn't want anything to do with SPNG's problems, and there may have been a clause in their contract that had to do with the problems that SPNG is going through, i.e., unethical conduct, or something like that, which gave Kroeger the right to send everything back. The only hitch in that giddyup is that I doubt Kroeger would pay for those sponges in advance. So maybe I'm back to square one. lol.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
