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

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.

Under established Third Circuit law, the assumption or assignment of a

In the recent opinion of Burtch v. Revchem Composites, Inc. (In re Sierra Concrete Design, Inc.), Adv. No. 10-52667 (CSS), 2015 WL 4381571 (Bankr. D. Del. July 16, 2015), the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued a memorandum opinion following trial on claims asserted by Jeoffrey Burtch, Chapter 7 Trustee of Sierra Concrete Design, Inc. (“Sierra”

On November 7, 2014, in the neighboring jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, Dots, LLC, et al. (“Debtors” or “Dots”) filed approximately 70 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

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

Summary

In a 28 page decision signed April 29, 2011, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that in order for a transfer to be considered “substantially contemporaneous” as used by Bankruptcy Code §547(c), it does not necessarily need to comply with the timing requirements of §547(e). Judge Gross’s opinion is available here (the

Summary

In a 15 page decision signed yesterday, April 5, 2011, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court determined that when a company receives pleadings in a bankruptcy case, even if served on their “doing business as” name, they have received proper service. Judge Sontchi’s opinion is available here.

Background

Select AirCargo (“AirCargo”) had