Download the full pdf of the opinion by clicking:here
July 26, 2022, US Bankruptcy Court for Delaware – Willard Manufacturing, Inc. (the “Defendant”) files a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it in the amended complaint of Alan D. Halperin, Liquidating Trustee (the “Trustee”) of the High Ridge Brands Liquidating Trust. HRB Winddown, Inc. et al. (the “Debtors”) had filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2019 and obtained confirmation of their Plan to form the Liquidating Trust in October, 2020.
In his amended complaint the Trustee acknowledged that he had sued a party who had not receive the alleged transfers, LEC Customs, Inc. The Trustee then filed a new amended complaint against Willard Manufacturing to amend that mistake.
The Trustee, through his amended complaint, seeks to avoid and recover alleged “preferential” and “fraudulent” transfers against Defendant Willard Manufacturing, Inc. The Defendant was allegedly a vendor or creditor that manufactured perfumes, cosmetics and other toilet preparations to or for the Debtors.. The Trustee alleges that one or more of the Debtors made payments aggregating to an amount not less than $894,770.65 to the Defendant during the preference period.
The Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rules 12(b)(5), for alleged insufficient service of process, and 12(b)(6), for alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Defendant cites section 546(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code alleging that the amended complaint was filed more than two years after the petition date. The amended complaint was allegedly filed after two years of the filing of bankruptcy petition. The Defendant claims that the Trustee is unable to avoid the transfers under sections 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code because of the expiration of limitation period. Consequently, the Defendant also alleges that the Trustee failed to state a claim for recovery of alleged transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 550.
Defendant Willard Manufacturing alleges that the Trustee merely attempted to serve Defendant Willard Manufacturing where LEC Customs—not Defendant—maintains its office (in Brampton, Ontario, Canada). The Defendant therefore pleads the Court to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(5).
Alan D. Halperin v. Willard Manufacturing, Inc. (In re HRB Winddown Inc. et al.), AP No. 21-51361, US Bankruptcy Court for Delaware
Share
Defendant Seeks Dismissal Citing Wrong Address Snafu
By roland jones
rgj@rolandjones.com
Jones & Associates
Defendant Seeks Dismissal Citing Wrong Address Snafu
American Express Moves BK Court to Dismiss 548 Transfer Claim
Defendant Seeks Summary Judgment on Ordinary Course of Business Defense
Dismissal Gambit Against "Barebones" 548 Complaint
Early Resignation Defeats 548 Action Says Former CEO
Fraudulent Conveyance Defendants Seek Dismissal Based on Alleged Non-Existence of Promissory Note
Defendants Claim Trustee’s Complaint Lacks Sufficient Details
Trustee Selleck Seeks to Avoid Alleged Fraudulent Transfer Under Guam Law
Defendant Alleges Trustee’s Complaint Does Not Meet Higher Pleading Standards of “Actual Fraud” Claim
Download the full pdf of the opinion by clicking: here
July 26, 2022, US Bankruptcy Court for Delaware – Willard Manufacturing, Inc. (the “Defendant”) files a motion to dismiss the claims asserted against it in the amended complaint of Alan D. Halperin, Liquidating Trustee (the “Trustee”) of the High Ridge Brands Liquidating Trust. HRB Winddown, Inc. et al. (the “Debtors”) had filed voluntary petitions under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2019 and obtained confirmation of their Plan to form the Liquidating Trust in October, 2020.
In his amended complaint the Trustee acknowledged that he had sued a party who had not receive the alleged transfers, LEC Customs, Inc. The Trustee then filed a new amended complaint against Willard Manufacturing to amend that mistake.
The Trustee, through his amended complaint, seeks to avoid and recover alleged “preferential” and “fraudulent” transfers against Defendant Willard Manufacturing, Inc. The Defendant was allegedly a vendor or creditor that manufactured perfumes, cosmetics and other toilet preparations to or for the Debtors.. The Trustee alleges that one or more of the Debtors made payments aggregating to an amount not less than $894,770.65 to the Defendant during the preference period.
The Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rules 12(b)(5), for alleged insufficient service of process, and 12(b)(6), for alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Defendant cites section 546(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code alleging that the amended complaint was filed more than two years after the petition date. The amended complaint was allegedly filed after two years of the filing of bankruptcy petition. The Defendant claims that the Trustee is unable to avoid the transfers under sections 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code because of the expiration of limitation period. Consequently, the Defendant also alleges that the Trustee failed to state a claim for recovery of alleged transfers under Bankruptcy Code § 550.
Defendant Willard Manufacturing alleges that the Trustee merely attempted to serve Defendant Willard Manufacturing where LEC Customs—not Defendant—maintains its office (in Brampton, Ontario, Canada). The Defendant therefore pleads the Court to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(5).
Alan D. Halperin v. Willard Manufacturing, Inc. (In re HRB Winddown Inc. et al.), AP No. 21-51361, US Bankruptcy Court for Delaware
Related posts: