Trainor Committee Continues to Seek $14.4 Million in Preferential Payment Claims

“Each preferential transfer was made to or for the benefit of the defendant, within the meaning of § 547(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, because each preferential transfer either reduced or fully satisfied a debt then owed by the debtor to the defendant,” wrote the committee in its numerous preferential payment complaints, filed in April. “Each preferential transfer was made for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor to the defendant before such transfer was made. The debtor was insolvent throughout the preference period because the sum of its representative debts was greater than the fair value of its respective assets.”

Further, the committee alleged that “each preferential transfer enabled the defendant to receive more than the defendant would have if the [Trainor’s] case was brought under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; the preferential transfers had not been made; and the defendant had received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the Bankruptcy Code.”

This is not the first time industry companies have been subject to requests for refunds of preferential payments. A similar situation arose two years ago in the bankruptcy case of Arch Aluminum. (Click here to view a blog written by USGNN.com™/USGlass publisher Debra Levy on the topic.)

If your company currently is involved in a preferential payment claim with the Trainor estate, please email pstacey@glass.com to share your story.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Leave a comment