Articles tagged with: Marty Shoes Holdings Inc.

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

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.

Continue reading…

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.

Continue reading…

Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Bankruptcy: Miller v. Footwear Unlimited Inc. – Defendant’s Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Complaint

Date: July 19, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

07/15/2011 – Defendant’s Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed in the Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. Adversary Proceedings by Footwear Unlimited Inc. before Judge Carey in the District of Delaware.

Chapter 7 Trustee George L. Miller (the “Trustee”), in each of the 98 Marty Shoes bankruptcy preference complaints, made the gutsy admission : “The Trustee finds himself in an extraordinary situation as he has been deprived of the Debtors’ books and records, though he has taken the necessary steps to locate these records.”  Despite this invitation to file 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and a prior warning given the Trustee by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey, this is the first motion to dismiss he is facing.  Registered users click here to see a copy of this brief. Even more surprising, he has been able to settle 10 preference actions, including several above the 50% mark.

Continue reading…

“Extaordinary” Circumstances Behind Marty Shoes Bankruptcy Preference Actions

Date: April 19, 2011 Author: burbageweddell

On March 16, 2011, George L. Miller, Chapter 7 Trustee for the estates of Marty Shoes Holdings, Inc. commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 98 complaints in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Trustee makes a gutsy admission in his preference complaints: “The Trustee finds himself in an extraordinary situation as he has been deprived of the Debtors’ books and records, though he has taken the necessary steps to locate these records.” As a result, the complaints fail to identify the antecedent debt as required to plead a prima facie case under recent Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions.

Continue reading…