Trainor Committee Seeks Preferential Payment Claims; Fenestration Companies on the ListMay 31st, 2013 | Category: Industry News
The Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the bankruptcy case of Trainor Glass remains in negotiations with a number of door and window-related companies, in both the residential and commercial market. This is according to its recently filed preferential payment claims to obtain funds paid in the 90 days before Trainor filed for Chapter 11 last March, according to a status report filed in the case. The claims total $14.5 million—and $14.4 million is outstanding.
According to the report, the committee currently is negotiating the claims made against the following industry-related companies:
- Advanced Door Interests LLC (dba Advanced Door Automation LLC), for a claim of $117,560.60;
- Applied Research Associates, for a claim of $32,647.22;
- Architectural Testing Inc., for a claim of $15,500;
- Assa Abloy Entrance Systems US Inc., for two separate claims, one of $207,879.88, and another $14,396.36;
- Building Envelope Solutions LLC, for a claim of $477,151.33;
- C.R. Laurence Co. Inc., for a claim of $171,170.80;
- Midwest Wholesale Hardware Co., for a claim of $51,795.74;
- Security Lock Distributors Inc., for a claim of $35,069.96; and
- Tremco Inc., for a claim of $69,250.17.
A number of the claims were recently settled, pending court approval.
The claims stem from committee allegations that during the 90-day period preceding Trainor’s petition for bankruptcy, between December 10, 2011, and March 9, 2012, Trainor “continued to operate its business affairs, including the transfer of property, either by checks, cashier checks, wire transfers, direct deposit, or otherwise to certain entities …”
The companies against whom the preferential payment claims were filed were considered debtors to Trainor during this time period and the committee alleges “each preferential transfer constituted a transfer of interest of the debtor in property,” according to court documents.
Further, the committee alleged that “each preferential transfer enabled the defendant to receive more than the defendant would have if the [Trainor’s] case was brought under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code; the preferential transfers had not been made; and the defendant had received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the Bankruptcy Code.”
This is not the first time industry companies have been subject to requests for refunds of preferential payments. A similar situation arose two years ago in the bankruptcy case of Arch Aluminum. (Click here to view a blog written by USGlass publisher (sister publication of DWM) Debra Levy on the topic.)