On from May 11, 2012 to May 12, 2014, Robert L. Geltzer, as Chapter 7 Trustee in the Tana Seybert LLC Bankruptcy, commenced Chapter 5 preferential transfer recovery litigation with the filing of 52 complaints in the Southern District of New York.
Debtor and Bankruptcy Case Overview
Lead Bankruptcy Case Name (Case Number): Tana Seybert LLC (09-15478)
Bankruptcy Court District (Division): Southern District of New York
Petition Date: On September 11, 2009, each of the Debtors filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11. On May 12, 2011, the Debtors' cases were converted by order of this Court to ones under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The interim trustee was appointed May 20, 2011. Notice of 341 hearing was provide with the hearing to be held on June 28, 2011. However, the case docket does not have an entry stating that the 341 hearing was actually held.
Associated Debtors: UTBTS, LLC f/k/a Tana Seybert LLC, and UTBCP, LLC f/k/a Cousins Printing LLC, and UTBCPS, LLC f/k/a Creative Print Services LLC, and UTBP, LLC f/k/a Printelligence, LLC
Debtors' Industry Group: Commercial Printing (SIC: 2750)
Debtors' Business: High end commercial printing and related bindery, mailing and fulfillment services.
Primary Industry Groupings of Defendants: Logistics providers, die cutters, ink and adhesive suppliers, general support services, union benefit plans
Adversary Proceedings Overview
Plaintiff: Robert L. Geltzer, as Chapter 7 Trustee
Number of Proceedings: 52
When Filed: from May 11, 2012 to May 14, 2014
Adversary Proceeding Judge: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck
Plaintiff's Counsel: The Law Offices of Robert L. Geltzer
Avoidance Period: The complaint identifies the preference period as the period " ".
Two Points of Note:
In the exhibits to the complaint identifying the alleged avoidable transfers, the Trustee makes clear that he is looking to apply the "remains unpaid" approach to subsequent new value. Its been awhile since a debtor or trustee has sought to use the "remains unpaid" approach in a mass preference action in the Southern District of New York.
The Chapter 7 Trustee seems confident that the date of his interim appointment is key for establishing that the complaints were filed within the statute of limitations. As to the date of the 341 meeting at which his appointment would have become permanent, both the complaint and the case docket are silent. Although the meeting was noticed there is no entry showing that it was actually held leaving open the question as to whether a 341 meeting was actually held.