Trustee Continues to File Clawback Actions in Telexfree LLC Bankruptcy
April 1, 2016, Massachusetts – On April 13, 2014, Debtors Telexfree, LLC and its affiliates filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. Subsequently, the cases were transferred to the District of Massachusetts. Subsequently, on June 6, 2014, Stephen B. Darr was appointed as a Chapter 7 Trustee.
As per the Order entered by the Court, the Debtors operated a massive Ponzi and pyramid scheme, which involved as many as 1,900,000 participants from multiple countries under the guise of a “multi-level marketing” company with its headquarters in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Although, the Debtors represented themselves as being in the business of selling telephone service plans that use voice over Internet (VoIP) technology, the sale of VoIP constituted only a minor portion of their business; the Debtors’ actual business was the recruitment of participants to carry out the sale of plans.
Last month, the Trustee initiated about 45 actions in the District of Massachusetts claiming that the defendants received more than they paid into Marlborough-based Telexfree between 2012 and 2014. The largest claim in the group is filed for recovery of claim amounts worth $747,973.55 and $106,416.35 against ISG Telecomm Consultants, LLC and Advent Communications Corporation respectively.
The Debtors bankruptcy cases are jointly administered under Case No. 14-40987. The cases are pending before the Honorable Judge Melvin S. Hoffman in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. The law firm of Murphy & King Professional Corporation is acting as lead bankruptcy counsel to Telexfree, LLC (D. Mass.) in the bankruptcy cases.
Trustee’s Avoidance Action Collapses as Defendant Did not Qualify as a Non-Statutory Insider
Seaver v. Glasser (In re Top Hat 430, Inc.), Nos. BKY 13-40651-WJF, 15-04025-MER, 2016 Bankr….Read More
A New York Court Grants Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Because Trustee Failed to Sufficiently Allege that the Debtor Entered the LBO with Actual Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud its Creditors
Kirschner v. Fitzsimons (In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.), No. 11-md-2296 (RJS), 2017 U.S….Read More
Quantum Foods – Preference Liability May be Set-off by an Allowed Unpaid Post-Petition Administrative Claims
Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Quantum Foods, LLC v. Tyson Foods, Inc.(In re Quantum…Read More
Tax Upset Sale is Not Avoidable Under Sec. 548(a)(1)(B)(i) Because the Price Defendant Paid for the Property Constituted Reasonably Equivalent Value
Crespo v. Abijah Tafari Immanuel (In re Crespo), Nos. 14-11629REF, 14-326, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2073…Read More
Trustee Satisfies all Elements of §547(b) to Avoid the Transfer as a Preference
Conti v. Coastal Warranty, LLC (In re NC & VA Warranty Co.), Nos. 15-80016, A-15-9035,…Read More