WHO WE ARE

Our bankruptcy practice is devoted primarily to representing defendants of preference and fraudulent conveyance actions under Sections 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. Read More…

WHAT WE DO

We have deep knowledge of preference and fraudulent conveyance defense litigation. This means reviewing and analyzing hundreds of preference and fraudulent conveyance judicial opinions issued each and every year. Read more…

ABOUT OUR EXPERTISE

We limit our practice to defending preference and fraudulent conveyance claims. Our dedication works and we can prove it. We represented a nationally known brand, a sportswear manufacturer ... Read More…

Home / * Firm News / Dismissed For No Payment

Dismissed For No Payment

May 28, 2019, Eastern District of Louisiana  The Debtors LMCHH PCP, LLC and Louisiana Medical Center and Heart Hospital, LLC are headquartered in Lacombe, Louisiana and are in the business of providing healthcare services. The Defendant, our client is the exclusive distributor of medical equipment, products instruments, disposable and consumable items, spare parts and accessories in the USA. The parties conducted business pursuant to an instrument supply agreement. The plaintiff sought to recover payments, worth $15,181.82 from our client, made during the 90 days before the Debtor’s petition date as preferential transfers. 

Upon review, we found that all the payments were made within the preferential period and that the Defendant did provide subsequent new value to the Debtors in the amount of $ 19,057.95, thereby reducing the net preference claim to $345.79. Thus, we were successfully able to argue that the Plaintiff cannot avoid the transfers to the extent of the subsequent new value provided by the Defendant to the Debtors.

Next, based on our analysis, we established that the payments were made in the range of 11 to 192 days during the base period and in the range of 24 to 140 days during the preference period. We argued that the preference period range fell within the base period range of payments. Further, the mode of payment during both the base period and preference period also remained consistent. During both the periods, the Debtors made payments via check and credit card. Moreover, the Defendant did not exert any collection pressure and did nothing to gain an advantage of the Debtors’ deteriorating financial conditions. Accordingly, we argued that the alleged preferential transfers were therefore made in the ordinary course of business between the debtor and the defendant and not available under Section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.

Based on our arguments and defenses in the position statement, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case for no payment.