The Plaintiff makes quick work of Defendant’s motion to dismiss advising the Court that the motion is moot “since in the interest of avoiding needless expense for the Reorganized Debtor, Visteon has submitted an Amended Complaint that fully addresses Global Asset’s concerns.” The response to the request for Rule 11 sanctions is what makes the brief noteworthy. Registered users click here to see a copy of this brief.
Chapter 7 Trustee Starts Kainos Partners Holding Company, LLC Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings
On July 5, 2011, Charles M. Forman, Chapter 7 Trustee in the Kainos Partners Holding Company, LLC Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 39 complaints in the District of Delaware.
Chapter 7 Trustee Starts Proliance International, Inc. Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings
On July 1, 2011 and July 6, 2011, George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee in the Proliance International, Inc. Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 34 complaints in the District of Delaware.
Chapter 7 Trustee Starts Moore-Handley, Inc. Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings
On July 6, 2011, James G. Henderson, Chapter 7 Trustee in the Moore-Handley, Inc. Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 22 complaints in the Northern District of Alabama (Birmingham).
Visteon Corporation Bankruptcy: Visteon Corporation v. Global Asset Protection Services, LLC – Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss
06/23/2011 – Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed in the Visteon Corporation Adversary Proceedings by Global Asset Protection Services, LLC before Judge Sontchi in the District of Delaware. This motion to dismiss provides a good treatment of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions addressing the pleading requirements for a Section 547 preference claim. This motion is noteworthy, however, for another reason. It includes a rare request for attorney’s fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Registered users can view the motion by clicking this link.
Chapter 7 Trustee Starts Opus East, LLC. Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings
On June 21, 2011, Jeoffrey L. Burtch, as Chapter 7 Trustee in the Opus East, LLC. Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 14 complaints in the District of Delaware.
Chapter 7 Trustee Starts Probulk Inc. Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings
On June 21, 2011, Salvatore LaMonica in the Probulk Inc. Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 58 complaints in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Bankruptcy Court Opinion in In re Drier of Significance to Ponzi Scheme Avoidance Action Defendants
Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn issues an exhaustive opinion that presents a mixed bag of good and bad news for avoidance action defendants who received Ponzi scheme payments. Among the issues addressed in the opinion are: the applicability of the “Ponzi scheme presumption” to actual fraudulent conveyance claims under § 548(a)(1)(A); the lack of a “mutual fraudulent intent” requirement under NYDCL § 276; the inability of the Trustee to pursue claims for constructive fraudulent conveyance under § 548(a)(1)(B) as to repayment of investor principal; and the inability of the Trustee to pursue constructive fraudulent conveyance claims under the NYDCL where repayment satisfied an antecedent debt.
Judge Walrath (Bankr. Del.) Grants 12(b)(6) Dismissal in Miller v. Mitsubishi Digital (In re Tweeter Opco)
In George L. Miller v. Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc. (In re Tweeter Opco, LLC), Ap. No. 10-54038 (Bankr. Del. June 14, 2011), Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath again applies the Iqbal and Twombly standards to the pleading of a bankruptcy preference claim. Given the precedent in the Delaware Bankruptcy Courts, the decision is no surprise. What will be disappointing to defenders of bankruptcy preference claims is Judge Walrath’s willingness to allow the Plaintiff to amend his complaint to address the pleading deficiencies. To see a copy of Judge Walrath’s opinion click this link.
Harvey Goldman & Company Bankruptcy: Gold v. Arm – Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
On July 14, 2010, an involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against Harvey Goldman & Company d/b/a Worldwide Equipment Company(the “Debtor”). The Court later entered an Order for Relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and a trustee was appointed (the “Trustee”). On February 18, 2011, the Trustee filed a complaint against Shirley Arm and Milton Arm (the “Defendants”) seeking two recover 2 payments made in the preference period. The payments totaled $5,000. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Trustee’s preference complaint on the grounds that the value of the transfers sought to be avoided was less than the jurisdictional minimum of $5,850 in Section 547(b)(9). The Trustee claims that Section 547(b)(9) does not apply.