Articles tagged with: AbitibiBowater Inc.

Reports, Articles, Motions, Opinions Concerning AbitibiBowater Inc. Bankruptcy Preferential, Fraudulent Transfer Avoidance Adversary Proceeding Litigation

AbitibiBowater Inc. Bankruptcy: The Claims Agent v. GL & V Beloit-Lenox Inc. et al – Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Date: June 10, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

06/06/2011 – Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed in the AbitibiBowater~Inc. Adversary Proceedings by GL &V Beloit-Lenox Inc. et al before Judge Kevin J. Carey in the District of Delaware.

The Claims Agent for AbitibiBowater, Inc., et al., (the “Plaintiff”) urges Judge Kevin J. Carey to apply In re Valley Media, Inc., 288 B.R. 189, 192 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003) in light of the original complaint’s allegation regarding the relationship between the Debtors and the Defendants. If the original complaint actually had included allegations regarding this relationship, the Court might have had to address this new battle line question. In fact, the original complaint barely contains any allegation regarding the business relationship. Also, the Plaintiff already has filed an amended complaint meeting even the most stringent requirement for pleading the payment of antecedent debts. However, the response provides a fairly comprehensive summary of the authority in Delaware and in other jurisdictions supporting a lower pleading standard for bankruptcy preference complaints and for that reason the response is noteworthy.

Continue reading…

AbitibiBowater Inc. Bankruptcy: Claims Agent v. Intellitrans, LLC – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Date: May 25, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

05/24/2011 – Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss filed in the AbitibiBowater Inc. Adversary Proceedings by Intellitrans, LLC before Judge Carey in the District of Delaware. This is the third motion to dismiss filed in Abitibibowater, Inc. bankruptcy preference adversary proceedings on based on Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . While not plowing any new ground as to Iqbal/Twombly, this defendant also moves the Court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b) on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to prosecute the preference action. Chances of getting a dismissal on these grounds are slim, but the plaintiff effectively uses the argument to frame the 12(b)(6) basis for the motion to dismiss. Defendant’s point – it tried to get the information required to be included in the complaint, and the plaintiff refused to provide it.

Continue reading…