Barclays Capital Inc. Opposition to Pirinate Consulting Group’s Motion to Amend it Avoidance Complaint

Date: September 26, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

09/23/2011 – Defendants Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint filed in the Spansion, Inc. Adversary Proceedings by Barclays Capital Inc. before Chief, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey in the District of Delaware filed by Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Wilmington, Delaware) attorneys Robert J. Steam, Jr., Julie A. Finocchiaro, and Amanda R. Steele .

Defendant Barclays Capital Inc. (“Barclays” or “Defendant”) opposes the motion of the Pirinate Consulting Group, LLC (“Plaintiff’), Claims Agent for the Chapter 11 Estates of Spansion, Inc., et al. (the “Debtors”) to amend its avoidance complaint. Barclay’s opposition is based on dual grounds – first, the amended complaint so drastically alters the original pleading that can not relate back; and second, the proposed amend complaint itself would be would be subject to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Barclays weaves together multiple limitations on avoidance actions, some common and some obscure, into a formidable effort to dismiss the Plaintiff’s avoidance complaint in its entirety.

MCTS2 Starts Velocity Express, Inc. Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings

Date: September 23, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

On on September 21, 2011 and September 22, 2011, MCTS2 in the Velocity Express, Inc. Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 79 complaints in the District of Delaware.

Thelen LLP Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee Files Adversary Proceedings against Former Partners, Their New Law Firms

Date: September 18, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

From September 15, 2011 to September 17, 2011, Yann Geron, as Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy of the former law firm Thelen LLC, filed 98 adversary proceeding complaints in the Southern District of New York against former Thelen partners and their new law firms and former Thelen clients. The Trustee sets the stage for each of these mass filing by describing Thelen’s rapid demise — from December 2006, when Thelen had 630 attorney’s, including 219 equity partners, to Thelen’s decision in October 2008 to dissolve the firm leaving $223 million in liabilities in excess of assets.

Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Walsh Rejects Substantive Consolidation Retroactivity by Implication

Date: September 8, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

District of Delaware, United States Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh issues his opinion in Giuliano v. Shorenstein Company LLC (In re Sunset Aviation, Inc. ), Adv. Proc. No. 11-50965 (Bankr. D. Del. September 7, 2011) holding that an order for substantive consolidation is not retroactively effective when it fails to expressly provide that it is nunc pro tunc. Based on this holding, Judge Walsh dismisses, with prejudice, the bankruptcy preference count of the complaint by Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estates of Sunset Aviation (the “Trustee”). Fundamentally, Judge Walsh rejected the Trustee’s urging for the Court to perfunctorily use a substantive consolidation order to rewrite Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Alexander Gallo Holdings, LLC Bankruptcy – 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors

Date: September 7, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

Alexander Gallo Holdings, LLC and 10 associated debtors^FN1 (the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 7, 2011 in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 11-14220). The Honorable Allan L. Gropper has been assigned to the case. This initial note provides the Debtors’ consolidated list of their 30 largest unsecured creditors. [Update September 09, 2013 – On September 5 and September 6, 2013, Ronald J. Friedman as Liquidating Trustee of AGH Liquidating, LLC, et al. (f/k/a Alexander Gallo Holdings, LLC) commended mass adversary proceedings for recovery of avoidable transfers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, including preferential transfers under Section 547 (bankruptcy preferences) and fraudulent transfers under Section 548. An APScans litigation report of these proceedings can be reviewed by clicking this link.]

NewPage Corporation – 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors

Author: burbageweddell

NewPage Corporation and 13 associated debtors^FN1 (the “Debtors”) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 7, 2011 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 11-12804). The Honorable Kevin Gross has been assigned to the case. This initial note provides the Debtors’ consolidated list of their 30 largest unsecured creditors. Unfortunately, the top 30 creditors are just the tip of the iceberg of the mass bankruptcy preference campaign launched by Pirinate Consulting Group LLC as litigation trustee of the NP Creditor Litigation Trust. On August 29, 2013, a massive transfer avoidance and recovery campaign was started against former providers of goods and services to the Debtors. For a compete Adversary Proceeding Litigation Report click this link.

Bankruptcy Judge Lundin Opinion – Statutory Language, Legislative History – Venue Limitation Applies to Bankruptcy Preference Actions

Date: September 5, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

Middle District of Tennessee, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Keith M. Lundin opines that the small-dollar home court venue exception in 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) applies to bankruptcy preference recovery litigation. To reach that conclusion, he holds that there is an “overlap between ‘arising under title 11’ and ‘arising in’ a case under Title 11 for purposes of venue under § 1409.” Judge Lundin thereby honors the clear legislative intent found in his scholarly, exhaustive review of the legislative history of Section 1409.

Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Bankruptcy: George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Brown Shoe Company, Inc. – Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Complaint

Date: August 30, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

08/29/2011 – Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed in the Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Adversary Proceedings by Brown Shoe Company, Inc. before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey in the District of Delaware filed by Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE) attorneys Donna Culver and Andrew R. Remming; Bryan Cave LLP (St. Louis, MO) attorney Cullen K. Kuhn.

Defendant’s reply hammers home two basic points: a Chapter 7 trustee is not excused from complying with the established standards in Delaware Bankruptcy Court governing preference complaints; and discovery to get the facts needed to amend Plaintiff’s complaint is not permitted. Defendant’s discussion of the second point and citations of authority in support follow.

Coudert Brothers LLP Bankruptcy: Development Specialists, Inc. v. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP – Defendant’s Memorandum of Law Concerning the Bankruptcy Courts Jurisdiction

Date: August 25, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

08/19/2011 – Defendant’s Memorandum of Law Concerning the Bankruptcy Courts Jurisdiction to Hear and Determine this Adversary Proceeding filed in the Coudert Brothers LLP Adversary Proceedings by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) filed by Holland & Knight LLP attorneys H. Barry Vasios and Barbra R. Parlin.

This memorandum is Defendant’s submission in response to the June 27, 2011 request from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain that the parties submit additional briefing on certain jurisdictional issues raised by the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall. Defendant provides a concise, three part formulation of the inquiry that a bankruptcy court must perform under Stern v. Marshall. Additionally, the Defendant addresses the impact of Stern in the context of the existing general order of reference. The Defendant concludes that Judge Drain is not authorized to finally determine any of the Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.

Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Bankruptcy: George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Brown Shoe Company, Inc. – Plaintiff’s Answering Brief to Motion to Dismiss Complaint

Date: August 23, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

08/22/2011 – Plaintiff’s Answering Brief to Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed in the Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Adversary Proceedings by Brown Shoe Company, Inc. before Chief, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey in the District of Delaware filed by Ciardi Ciardi & Astin attorneys John D. McLauglin, Jr., Albert A. Ciardi, III, and Holly E. Smith. Emphasizing that he simply could not get from the Debtor further records regarding the purported preferential transfers, Chapter 7 Trustee Miller responds to Defendant’s motion to dismiss with a three pronged argument: general relationship allegations are enough; Valley Media goes too far; give me a break, I am a trustee.

Business Legal Representation

Burbage & Weddell L.L.C – 404.817.8041

Barclays Capital Inc. Opposition to Pirinate Consulting Group’s Motion to Amend it Avoidance Complaint

MCTS2 Starts Velocity Express, Inc. Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings

Thelen LLP Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee Files Adversary Proceedings against Former Partners, Their New Law Firms

Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Walsh Rejects Substantive Consolidation Retroactivity by Implication

Alexander Gallo Holdings, LLC Bankruptcy – 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors

NewPage Corporation – 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors

Bankruptcy Judge Lundin Opinion – Statutory Language, Legislative History – Venue Limitation Applies to Bankruptcy Preference Actions

Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Bankruptcy: George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Brown Shoe Company, Inc. – Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Complaint

Coudert Brothers LLP Bankruptcy: Development Specialists, Inc. v. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP – Defendant’s Memorandum of Law Concerning the Bankruptcy Courts Jurisdiction

Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Bankruptcy: George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Brown Shoe Company, Inc. – Plaintiff’s Answering Brief to Motion to Dismiss Complaint