preference action

On June 16, 2016, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) of Kid Brands Inc., et al. (the “Debtors”), filed approximately 64 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Committee also seeks to disallow claims of such preference defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Many preference defendants are not aware of the fact that if their pre-petition contract with the debtor is assumed or assigned in the course of the bankruptcy, then such assumption/assignment will generally serve as a bar to recovery for receipt of alleged preferential transfers.

In this prior post, the preference actions filed by Jeoffrey L. Burtch, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Capitol Infrastructure, LLC bankruptcy estates, from April 22 through 24th were discussed.  Since the filing of these preference actions, a Pretrial Conference has been set for July 22, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.

On March 28, 2014, AFA Investment Inc. filed approximately 125 complaints seeking to avoid and recover alleged preferential transfers pursuant to Sections 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, to disallow claims of the defendants pursuant to Section 502(d), and seeking attorneys’ fees.  AFA Investment Inc., and various affiliated entities (the “Debtors”) filed petitions for bankruptcy in the District of Delaware on April 2, 2012.

It’s your worst nightmare: you provided goods and services to a financially struggling company, only to find out that it filed for bankruptcy, leaving your company with a large unpaid balance.  Worst yet, after the debtor filed for bankruptcy, you receive a demand letter in the mail threatening a lawsuit if you do not return payments that you received from the debtor, even though you earned that money by providing goods or services to that entity.  What sense does that make?