Subscribe to our newsletter to receive more information and regular updates, click here to subscribe

Home Insys Therapeutics, Inc.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc.

To receive more information and regular updates on this case, subscribe below

 

History of the Case

On June 10, 2019 (the “Petition Date”), Insys Therapeutics, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”) each filed voluntary petitions for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the District of Delaware (“the “Court”). Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey was assigned as a judge in the bankruptcy case.

On January 16, 2020, the Court entered an order confirming the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation of the Debtors (the “Plan”).

On February 18, 2020, the Plan became effective pursuant to which certain assets of the Debtors existing as of such date were transferred to and became vested in the Insys Liquidation Trust. William Henrich was appointed the Liquidating Trustee of the Insys Liquidation Trust.

Insys Liquidation Trust (the “Plaintiff”) by and through William Henrich is pursuing avoidance actions in the bankruptcy case.

Between April 16, 2021, and April 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed adversary proceedings against 34 defendants seeking the avoidance and/or recovery of transfers as alleged preferential transfers, fraudulent transfers, and post-petition transfers among other claims. The amounts at stake in these adversary cases range from $7,336.10 to $1,000,000.00. Earlier, between February 18, 2021, and February 25, 2021, the Plaintiff had initiaed similar adversary proceedings against 54 defendants.

The law firm, Montgomery Mccracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, is representing as the counsel of the Plaintiff with respect to these adversary cases.

 

Allegations in the Complaints

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have received transfers that are allegedly avoidable and/or recoverable as preferential transfers under §547(b) and as a constructively fraudulent transfer under §548 and §550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

As to the preference transfer claim in the complaints, the Plaintiff specifically alleges that the alleged transfers were made for the benefit of the defendants, for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the Debtors, the Debtors were insolvent at the time of the transfers, the transfers were made within 90 days before the Petition Date (the “Preference Period”) and that the defendants received more than they would have received if the defendants were paid in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation. These allegations constitute the basic elements of a preferential claim pursuant to §547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the transfers, the Plaintiff is alleging that the defendants were preferred over other similarly situated creditors of the Debtors.

As to the constructive fraudulent transfer claim in the complaints, the Plaintiff is alleging that the transfers were made to the defendants for less than their worth at a time when the Debtors were insolvent or were rendered insolvent as a result of the transfers. Fraudulent intent is not required for a constructive fraudulent transfer claim. All transfers made to the defendants within two years before the Debtors’ bankruptcy fall within the purview of avoidance.

The Plaintiff also alleges in the complaints that the transfers may be avoidable as post-petition transfers made without the authorization of the Court.

 

Possible Defenses to a Plaintiff’s Allegations

 The defenses available to a defendant are two-fold. First, the defendant may challenge the plaintiff’s allegations as described above. For example, by challenging that the transfers were not the property of the debtor or by challenging the insolvency status of the debtor. Alternatively, a defendant may assert the following “affirmative defenses”, among other defenses:

 

  • Contemporaneous Exchange for New Value Defense pursuant to §547(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code – For this defense to apply to a preference claim, the payment must be made substantially contemporaneous in exchange for the alleged transfers and there must have been an intent to make the contemporaneous exchange. Typically, this occurs when a vendor does not render an invoice and the understanding of the parties is that the payment will be made immediately upon delivery of the product or services to the debtor.
  • Ordinary Course of Business Defense pursuant to §547(c)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code – For this defense to apply to a preference claim, the payments during the historical period which typically occurs during the 2 years before the preference period, and during the preference period must be shown as consistent. The consistency in the pattern and timing of payments determines that the transfers were made in the ordinary course of business of the parties and as such, no preferential treatment was given to the defendant over other creditors of the debtor.
  • Industry Standard Defense pursuant to §547(c)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code – This defense typically protects the payments that are ordinary for a particular industry. For this defense to apply to a preference claim, a defendant may be required to establish standard terms concerning pattern and timing of payment in its industry.
  • New Value Defense pursuant to §547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code – For this defense to apply to a preference claim, a defendant must have provided new value in the form of products or services to the debtor after an alleged preferential transfer and the new value should not be secured by a security interest which the plaintiff cannot avoid. The new value may or may not have remained unpaid depending on the applicable law in the applicable Circuit.
  • Provided Value” Defense pursuant to §548(a)(1)(B)(i) and §548(c) of the Bankruptcy Code – For this defense to apply to a constructive fraud claim, a defendant has to prove that the debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange of the alleged transfer. This defense is required to be established along with the “good faith” defense as described below.
  • “Good Faith” Defense pursuant to §548(c) of the Bankruptcy Code – For this defense to apply in addition to the “reasonably equivalent value” defense to a constructive fraud claim, a defendant has to prove that the transfer was a result of an arm’s length dealing with the debtor and that the defendant was a good faith transferee.
  • Safe Harbor Defense pursuant to §546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code – This defense, also known as the “financial institution safe harbor” defense, may apply to certain transactions which may qualify as transactions “by or to” financial institutions pursuant to §546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

 

Jones & Associates

Course Registration Form

Enter your email and press subscribe

Enter your email and press subscribe