This daily APScans report covers all recent docket entries in the adversary proceedings brought by Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC, as Claims Agent for the Chapter 11 Estates of Spansion, Inc. et al. for recovery of avoidable transfers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, including preferential transfers under Section 547 (bankruptcy preferences).
Pre-Applied Filters: The following filings are not included in the "Current" APScan: certificates or affidavits of service, receipts for filing fees and other clerical matters.
Not For Individual Docket Monitoring: Pre-applied filters may eliminate important notices and certificates. A party to an adversary proceeding must not consider APScans to be a substitute for reviewing the docket of the proceeding in which it is a defendant.
This APScans is updated daily to cover filings made as of midnight on the previous day. This APScans covers filings ENTERED during the period from August 01, 2015 through September 29, 2015. .
- 09/23/2011 - Defendants Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed in AP No.: 11-51064 - Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. -
A multi-faceted opposition to Plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to recast a $1.5 million "retainer" payment as a fraudulent conveyance.
- 08/19/2011 - Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed in AP No.: 11-51064 - Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. -
Defendant's straight forward reply: "Plaintiff improperly asks the Court to focus on its yet to be allowed, proposed amended complaint rather than defend its current pleading."
- 08/12/2011 - Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed in AP No.: 11-51064 - Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. -
In this response to Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff is in the awkward position of requesting leave to amend its complaint to preserve its fraudulent conveyance count by admitting that the $1.5 million "preferential payment" to the Defendant was actually a retainer. With no effort made to support a contention that the original complaint adequately alleged a constructive fraudulent transfer, the question is whether Chief, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey will grant leave to amend.
- 04/29/2011 - Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed in AP No.: 11-51064 - Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. -
The shrewdness of this motion to dismiss and its effectiveness only became apparent with the filing of the Plaintiff's response on August 12, 2011. Defendant makes a tactical decision to seek dismissal of only the counts of the complaint based on constructive fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B), authorized post-petition transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 549, and disallowance of claims pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) and (j). The preferential transfer count pursuant to to 11 U.S.C. § 547 is left alone - let Plaintiff try and explain how it brought a preference claim without an antecedent debt.
- CADDJ APScans Report of Complaints, Answers, Dismissals, Defaults and Judgments in the Spansion Inc. Bankruptcy Preferential Transfer Recovery Adversary Proceedings
Adversary Proceedings Overview
Lead Bankruptcy Case Name (Case Number): Spansion Inc. (09-10690)
Bankruptcy Court District (Division): District of Delaware
Petition Date: March 1, 2009
Associated Cases: The Associated Debtors are: Spansion Inc., a Delaware corporation ; Spansion Technology LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ; Spansion LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ; Cerium Laboratories LLC, a Delaware limited liability company , and Spansion International, Inc., a Delaware corporation .
Plaintiff: Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC, as Claims Agent for the Chapter 11 Estates of Spansion, Inc. et al.
Number of Proceedings: 61
When Filed: February 25, 2011
Adversary Proceeding Judge: Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey
Plaintiff's Counsel: ASK Financial LLP (St.Paul, MN), Kara E Casteel (Lead Attorney); Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC (Wilmington, DE) through its attorney Ronald S. Gellert
Avoidance Period: The complaint identifies the preference period as the period "[o]n or within ninety (90) days before the Petition Date, that is between December 1, 2008 and March 1, 2009."
Proceedings to Watch
Bankruptcy preference claims against professionals, and especially law firms, are important to watch because they tend to generate more motions practice (motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment) and hence more court decisions than the average bankruptcy preference proceedings. In the case of the Spansion adversary proceedings, the dominant player in the prosecution of bankruptcy preference claims, ASK Financial, is taking on the some heavy hitters in the legal, accounting, and investment banking fields, and the dollars involved are significant. (See table to right.)
Perhaps this list will provide some solace for all of those CFOs, controllers, credit managers, and business managers who, upon having their company hit with a preference claim, have suffered the question "How could you let this happen?" As we have had to explain to our clients on many occasions, getting hit with a preference claim is not a matter of having done something wrong. Even the best in the bankruptcy and restructuring fields are not immune.
|Latham & Watkins LLP
|King & Spalding LLP
|Baker & McKenzie Global Services LLC
|K&L Gates LLP
|Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation
|Brown Rudnick LLP
|Morrison & Foerster LLP
|Houlihan Lokey, Inc.
|Gordian Group, LLC
|McKinsey & Company, Inc.
|Deloitte & Touche LLP
Back to TopBack to Top