Pacific Energy Resources Ltd. Bankruptcy Preferential Transfer Adversary Proceedings Report

Home The Firm APScans™Notes Resources FAQ Motions Practice

Pacific Energy – Current APScans

This daily APScans report covers the substantive filings made during the immediately preceding 7 days in the adversary proceedings brought by Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, on behalf of the Chapter 11 estates of Pacific Energy Resources Ltd., et al. for recovery of avoidable transfers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, including preferential transfers under Section 547 (bankruptcy preferences).

Related Materials:

CADDJ APScans Report of Complaints, Answers, Dismissals, Defaults and Judgments in the Pacific Energy Resources Ltd., et al Bankruptcy Preferential Transfer Recovery Adversary Proceedings

Adversary Proceedings Overview

Lead Bankruptcy Case Name (Case Number): Pacific Energy Resources Ltd., et al (09-10785)

Petition Date: March 9, 2009

Bankruptcy Court District (Division): District of Delaware

Associated Cases: Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.; Petrocal Acquisition Corp.; Pacific Energy Alaska Holdings, LLC; Carneros Acquisition Corp; Pacific Energy Alaska Operating LLC; Carneros Energy, Inc.; and Gotland Oil, Inc.

Plaintiff: Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, on behalf of the Chapter 11 estates of Pacific Energy Resources Ltd., et al.

Number of Proceedings: 57

When Filed: August 25, 2010 and August 26, 2010

Adversary Proceeding Judge: Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey

Plaintiff's Counsel: Pepper Hamilton LLP through its attorneys Attorneys David B. Stratton, James C. Carignan, Michael J. Custer, John M. Schanne, Jr., Francis J. Lawall, Nina M. Varughese

Avoidance Period: The complaint identifies the preference period as the period from December 10, 2008 to March 9, 2009.

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.

Terms of Use: Use of APScans is subject to this website’s Terms of Use.

This is an unregistered version of APScans. The registered user version covers the entire history of these adversary proceedings. Click this link to become a registered user. Registration is free.

This APScans is updated daily. This APScans covers the period from January 01, 2012 through February 03, 2012.

AP #	Doc.	Filed	Entered	Defendant	Category	Event	Pacific Energy Resources Ltd., et al APSCANS™ Docket-Text
							© 2011 Burbage & Weddell LLC All Rights Reserved. Use of APSCANS is subject to www.burbageweddell.com Terms of Use. APSCANS™ is a trademark of Burbage & Weddell LLC
10-52896 KJC	040	02/03/2012	02/03/2012 14:41:59	Techno Coatings, Inc.	Order	Order	Order Scheduling Status Conference and Request for Status Report. (Related Document(s) 39 ) Order Signed on 2/3/2012. (LMD)
10-52896 KJC	039	02/02/2012	02/02/2012 12:29:39	Techno Coatings, Inc.	Misc	Status Report	Status Report // Request of Plaintiff Gerald A. Tywoniuk for Status Conference and to Calendar Trial Date Filed by Gerald A. Tywoniuk, Plan Representative for Liquidating Debtors. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Form of Order # (2) Certificate of Service) (Carignan, James)
10-56155 KJC	036	01/13/2012	01/13/2012 15:20:03	Pacific Energy Resources Ltd.	Notice	Deposition - Notice	Notice of Deposition of David Hall Filed by Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London and those Companies Subscribing to Combined Cover Note JHB-CJP-1654 (Mangan, Kevin)

Observations and Notes on Pacific Energy Bankruptcy Preference Adversary Proceedings:

August 30, 2010 – The complaints have an interesting feature. With respect to each debtor, there is a specific allegation of the asset value and the amount of liabilities on the petition date and this allegation is carried back to the the beginning of the preference period. The following is a sample of this allegation:

As of the Petition Date, Debtor San Pedro Bay Pipeline Company had $4,710,182.60 in assets and $393,918,235.60 in liabilities. Upon information and belief, this balance of assets vs. liabilities was roughly the same during the Preference Period.

This is the type of allegation supporting insolvency that really should be included in all preference complaints. While we are not fans of motions to dismiss due to lack of specificity in pleading, if there is a question of insolvency it might be worth it to file the motion to dismiss for failure to make specific allegations related to insolvency in order to flush out a weakness in the plaintiff’s case on this point.