Bankruptcy Preference Creditor's Digest

Lead Bankruptcy Case Name (Case Number): MPC Computers, LLC (08-12667)

Bankruptcy Court District (Division): District of Delaware

Petition Date: November 6, 2008

Associated Cases: The Associated Debtors are: MPC Corporation; GTG PC Holdings, LLC; MPC-G, LLC; MPC Solutions Sales, LLC; MPC-Pro, LLC; Gateway Companies, Inc.; Gateway Pro Partners, LLC; and Gateway Professional, LLC

Plaintiff: Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of MPC Computers, LLC

Number of Proceedings: 97 complaints include claims under Section 547 - Preferences; 77 claims were brought solely under alternative theories including turnover claim pursuant to Section 542, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, equitable subordination pursuant to 11 USC Section 510(c)

When Filed: October 28, 2010 through November 5, 2010

Adversary Proceeding Judge: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh

Plaintiff's Counsel: Co-counsel in the bankruptcy preference adversary proceedings brought on behalf of The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors are Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) through its attorney David P. Primack and Hahn & Hessen LLP (New York, New York) through its attorneys Mark S. Indelicato, Edward L. Schnitzer, Joseph Orbach. The alternative theory adversary proceedings were brought either by Reed Smith LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) through its attorneys Richard A. Robinson and J. Cory Falgowski or by Landis Rath & Cobb LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) through its attorneys James S. Green, Jr. and J. Landon Ellis. One preference action, probably due to a conflict, was brought by Whiteford Taylor Preston LLC (Wilmington, Delaware) through its attorney Thomas J. Francella, Jr.

Avoidance Period: The complaints do not identify the preference period by dates.

Instructions: Click this link to for instructions on how to use APScans’ sorting/filtering features and use of docket links.

Pre-Applied Filters: The following filings are not included in the current "7 Day" APScan: certificates or affidavits of service, receipts for filing fees and other clerical matters.

Not For Individual Docket Monitoring: Pre-applied filters may eliminate important notices and certificates. A party to an adversary proceeding must not consider APScans to be a substitute for reviewing the docket of the proceeding in which it is a defendant.