Preferential Transfers Must be Identified with Particularity to Survive a Motion to Dismiss
THQ Inc. v. Starcom Worldwide, Inc. (In re THQ Inc.), Nos. 12-13398 (MFW) (Substantively, 14-51079 (MFW), 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 1774 (U.S. Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 18, 2016)
Debtors THQ, Inc. and others were leading developers and publishers of interactive entertainment software for popular gaming systems. Prior to the petition date, one or more of the Debtors entered into agreements with the Defendant Starcom Worldwide, Inc. for media and marketing services. The bankruptcy Debtors brought an adversary proceeding to recover certain transfers as preference and/or fraudulent transfers from the Starcom Defendants and/or the Additional Defendants with whom Starcom further entered into agreements. During the 90 days prior to the petition date, the Starcom Defendants received transfers from the Debtors of at least $5,033,959.02 and the Additional Defendants were alleged to have received one or more transfers from the Debtors and/or the Starcom Defendants during the preference period. The Defendants contended that the preference claim must be dismissed because the complaint was devoid of particularized facts with respect to the nature and amount of each antecedent debt, the dates on which the transfers were made, and the identities of the transferors and the transferees.
The Court agreed with the Defendants that the complaint did not adequately identify the transferors and the transferees, the nature of the antecedent debt, and the dates of the alleged transfers to the additional Defendants. The Court found that with respect to the identity of any antecedent debt which the transfers paid, the Debtor merely alleged that the transfers were made for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by one or more of the Debtors to the Additional Defendants before the Transfers were made. The Court held that this was not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and dismissed the preference claim.
The Defendants next argued that the complaint also failed to properly assert a fraudulent transfer claim against them, as the complaint merely paraphrased the language of section 548(a)(1)(B) without providing any supporting facts. The Court agreed that the Debtors did not identify transfers made to alleged transferees, failed to plead any facts to support the allegation that the debtors received less than reasonably equivalent value for the alleged transfers, and only alleged in a conclusory manner that the debtors were insolvent at the time of the alleged transfers. Consequently, the Court dismissed the fraudulent transfer claim.
Madoff Accountants Say Trustee Can’t Reargue Dismissal of Clawback Claims
New York, September 21, 2016 — The two accountants, Frank Avellino and Michael Bienes, urged…Read More
Madoff Trustee’s Recovery Reaches $12.7 Billion out of Estimated $17.5 Billion Lost in Principal
November 20, 2017, New York – Earlier last month, Irving H. Picard, Esq., as trustee…Read More
Trustee Can Not Recover the Transfers Made by the Debtor’s President to Himself For Lack of Evidence
Rentas v. Gomez (In re Indrescom Sec. Tech. Inc.), No. 12-07047, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3618…Read More
Settlement Funds Voluntarily Transferred Under the Pretext of Fraudulent Inducement are Property of the Estate
In re Dreier LLP, No. 08-15051-SMB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92322 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016)…Read More
A New York Bankruptcy Court Narrows Madoff Trustee’s $905 Million Lawsuit Against an Accounting Firm
In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, Nos. 08-01789 (SMB), 10-05421 (SMB), 2016 Bankr….Read More