F

T

C

R

V

NL

C

A

CL

P

CB

CN

CT

Track Record

Track Record

Learn more about Jones & Associates.
See our outstanding track record.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
See all our references.
Watch our latest videos.
We'd love to hear from you.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Here are the clawback news.
Here are the latest case news.
What our clients are saying.

Track Record

STALNAKER VS. HOWARD HAMILTON (IN RE FIRST AMERICAN INSURANCE SER.), A.P. NO. 11-04171 (NEBRASKA)

Amount of Claim : $1,910,759.18
Disposition : Case dismissed

We represented the defendant in this case who received monthly interest payments from the debtor pursuant to an agreement. We established that one alleged payment was never received by our client and other payments were received in the ordinary course of business. Our new value defense analysis reduced the total preference claim to $50,333.34. We also successfully argued against the fraudulent conveyance claim.

LEBERMAN V. U.S. XPRESS ENTERS., 2011 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 139359 (N.D.N.Y DEC. 5, 2011) (DISTRICT COURT, NYND)

Amount of Claim : $196,308.15
Disposition : The District Court granted judgment in favor of the defendant. Case dismissed.

We represented the defendant, a freight shipping and delivery services provider, in this preference action. Based on the ordinary course of business defense, we established that the payment averages, payment ranges and overall invoice and payment pattern during the base period and the preference period remained consistent. We also argued a subsequent new value defense of $74,451.62 which lowered the total claim amount to $121,859.53.

GAVIN VS. NAV CANADA (IN RE MAXJET), A.P. NO. 09-53070 (DE)

Amount of Claim : $452,012.57
Disposition : Case dismissed

Based on our ordinary course of business analysis using the payment averages and clustering or distribution of payments, the plaintiff agreed to settle this case for no payment. About seven days difference in overall payment averages during the base period and the preference period transactions was well established by us as being in the ordinary course. We also established a new value defense.

FORMAN VS. CITI BRANDS (IN RE KAINOS PARTNERS), A.P. NO. 11-52493 (DE)

Amount of Claim : $369,102.31
Disposition : Case dismissed

We represented the defendant, who supplied donuts to the debtors’ Dunkin Donut retail stores. We established that preference period payments were consistent with the ones during the base period. Based on our ordinary course of business defense, the plaintiff dismissed the case. We also argued an unpaid new value defense that reduced the net preference claim to $90,314.51.

JACOBS VS. MAC-CLAIR (IN RE NEW CENTURY TRS), A.P. NO. 09-51853 (DE)

Amount of Claim : $220,199.17
Disposition : Case dismissed

We defended our client and argued that the case was liable to be dismissed as the trustee pursued the cause of action on breach of contract and turnover of estate property. Based on our convincing contentions in our position statement, the trustee dismissed the case for no value.

DAVIS VS. SIGMA BREAKTHROUGH (IN RE QUEBECOR), A.P. NO. 10-01418 (NYSD)

Amount of Claim : $215,226.39
Disposition : Case dismissed

We established, in addition to other defenses, that our client was not a creditor of the debtor, which is one of the basic requirements for a preference claim.

GAZES VS. DALUMI (IN RE FORTUNOFF), A.P. NO. 10-4125 (SDNY)

Amount of Claim : $157,309.00
Disposition : Case dismissed

We successfully defended a jewellery manufacturing company in this preference case by establishing that our client was not a transferee of the debtor’s property.

LCLLT VS. ICON CONSTRUCTORS (IN RE LANDSOURCE), A.P. NO. 10-51212 (DE)

Amount of Claim : $53,518.21
Disposition : Case dismissed

We represented the defendant, a construction company, in this preference action. We argued that the alleged preference payments were not avoidable because the defendant was a secured creditor as it was a holder of inchoate lien as per the State law.

PETERSON VS. FRAMARX (IN RE AGRI-BEST), A.P. NO. 12-01343 (NORTHERN IL)

Amount of Claim : $21,297.50
Disposition : Case dismissed

The defendant, our client in this case was a provider of various food materials related services to the debtor. We showed that the preference payments were consistent with the previous practice between the parties as using the payment averages, there was a difference of only two days in the base period and the preference period transactions. A new value defense in the amount of $6,109.00 further reduced the net claim amount.

DAVID VS. TEL-COMM (IN RE QUEBECOR), A.P. NO. 10-02137 (SDNY)

Amount of Claim : $2,966,909.82
Disposition : Settled for $5,000.00 (5.04% of the total claim amount)

Our client, the defendant, provided services for the relocation of debtor’s heavy printing equipment. This case was settled based on our argument that the alleged preference payments were not avoidable as the defendant was a secured creditor. We established that the defendant was a holder of mechanic’s lien as per Mississippi State law.

EHRENBERG VS. HYATT LEADER (IN RE AXIUM), A.P. NO. 09-03060 (CA)

Amount of Claim : $177,961.00
Disposition : Settled for $9,000.00 (5.06% of the total claim amount)

We represented the defendant in this case, a service vendor that provided information technology consultants as temporary workers. We were successful in our settlement negotiation based on our earmarking defense argument. The transfers were not transfers for an interest of the debtor in property and therefore could not be avoided as preference.

EHRENBERG VS. BRIDGEWATER (IN RE AXIUM), A.P. NO. 09-03273 (CENTRAL CA)

Amount of Claim : $122,155.00
Disposition : Settled for $7,000.00 (5.73% of the total claim amount)

Our client, the defendant in this preference case, provided computer consulting services and other computer-related services to the debtors. The plaintiff agreed to settle this case on the basis of our ordinary course of business analysis based on payment averages and payment ranges. We also argued the contemporaneous exchange for a new value defense.

PETERSON VS. KWA, INC. (IN RE AGRI-BEST), A.P. NO. 12-01354 (ILLINOIS)

Amount of Claim : $171,000.00
Disposition : Settled for $10,000.00 (5.84% of the total claim amount)

The defendant, our client in this case, was a provider of various food materials related services to the debtor. We showed that the preference payments were consistent with the previous practice between the parties as using the payment averages, there was a difference of only two days in the base period and the preference period transactions. A new value defense in the amount of $13,700.00 further reduced the total claim amount.

EHRENBERG VS. SUPERIOR TECHNICAL (IN RE AXIUM), A.P. NO. 09-03435

Amount of Claim : $102,857.00
Disposition : Settled for $6,500.00 (6.32% of the total claim amount)

We represented the defendant in this case, a service vendor that provided information technology consultants as temporary workers. We were successful in our settlement negotiation based on our earmarking defense argument. The transfers were not transfers for an interest of the debtor in property and therefore could not be avoided as preference.

OCEAN RIDGE VS. RICE INSULATION (IN RE WCI), A.P. NO. 10-521010 (DE)

Amount of Claim : $71,625.00
Disposition : Settled for $5,000.00 (6.98% of the total claim amount)

Our client, the defendant was an insulation installation contractor. This case was settled based on our ordinary course of business defense analysis showing consistency in the base period and the preference period payments. We also established that the defendant was a holder of inchoate construction lien as per the applicable State law.

EHRENBERG VS. SUPERIOR DESIGN (IN RE AXIUM), A.P. NO. 09-03452 (CENTRAL CA)

Amount of Claim : $171,645.46
Disposition : Settled for $12,000.00 (6.99% of the total claim amount)

We represented the defendant in this case, a temporary staffing company. We were successful in our settlement negotiation based on our earmarking defense argument. The transfers were not transfers for an interest of the debtor in property and therefore could not be avoided as preference.

EHRENBERG VS. ISES (IN RE AXIUM), A.P. NO. 09-03018 (CENTRAL CA)

Amount of Claim : $67,667.00
Disposition : Settled for $5,000.00 (7.38% of the total claim amount)

We represented the defendant in this case, a service vendor that provided information technology consultants as temporary workers. We were successful in our settlement negotiation based on our earmarking defense argument. The transfers were not transfers for an interest of the debtor in property and therefore could not be avoided as preference.

EHRENBERG VS. ARGUS (IN RE AXIUM), A.P. NO. 09-03016 (CENTRAL CA)

Amount of Claim : $315,324.00
Disposition : Settled for $25,000.00 (7.93% of the total claim amount)

We represented the defendant in this case, a service vendor that provided information technology consultants as temporary workers. We were successful in our settlement negotiation based on our earmarking defense argument. The transfers were not transfers for an interest of the debtor in property and therefore could not be avoided as preference.

JLL VS. MEDINA (IN RE WORKFLOW), A.P. NO. 12-07248 (EASTERN VIRGINIA)

Amount of Claim : $23,187.94
Disposition : Settled for $2,000.00 (8.63% of the total claim amount)

Our client, the defendant in this preference action, sold wood shipping pallets to the debtor. Based on our analysis of the ordinary course of business defense using the payment averages and the payment ranges, the trustee agreed to settle this case. We also established a new value defense in the amount of $7,313.50.