Favorable Dismissal For No Payment In Pharmaceutical Adversary Proceeding
A Chapter 7 trustee sued our client, a pharmaceutical developer and manufacturer, for alleged preferential and fraudulent transfers tied to a long‑term supply relationship. After our representation, the case was dismissed, and our client paid nothing.
Our client had worked with the debtor for years under a detailed development and supply agreement for a veterinary sedative product. We highlighted this long history and showed that the challenged payment arose from normal, repeat business activity, not from any unusual or suspect transaction.
We prepared a clear payment‑history analysis that compared the time, manner, and size of the challenged payment to prior invoices. The numbers showed that the invoice during the 90‑day preference period fit squarely within the existing pattern of ACH payments and timing, supporting a strong ordinary‑course defense under section 547(c)(2).
We also showed that the debtor received real and significant value in return. That value included product development, FDA approval support, commercial manufacturing, storage, and shipment of finished product at the agreed contract price, undercutting any fraudulent transfer theory.
By combining these facts with targeted legal arguments, we positioned the case so that the Trustee could not justify continuing the litigation. The adversary proceeding was dismissed for no payment, fully protecting our client and eliminating all clawback exposure.
(3)