The City of Detroit recently sued 180 companies and people who may have thought they were special because they had received payments shortly before Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in July 2013.
Unfortunately, those “special” people and companies are now being sued for being “preferred” by the City of Detroit in making payments to them. The lawsuits range from under $100,000 to several million dollars.
The suits were filed the end of November and early December, shortly before the two year window closed to sue for preferences after the order for relief was entered by the bankruptcy court on Dec. 5, 2013. Somewhat ironically, the City of Detroit is “celebrating” the one-year anniversary of its emergence from bankruptcy as “The New Detroit.”
The lawsuits are filed against city vendors, recipients of personal injury judgments and several law firms. While the lawsuits do not appear to have been served yet, there are a number of defenses that can be raised in these lawsuits.
Among the defenses are the new value defense and ordinary course of business defense. In addition, if the payments that the city seeks to recover are part of an executory contract that was assumed by the city, then such payments should not be recoverable as preferences given that the contract was assumed.
For those unfortunate souls who find themselves being treated a bit less special than they had hoped or expected, in the city’s cases or in similar situations, Plunkett Cooney has several bankruptcy experts who can help.
David A. Lerner is a partner in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office and a member of Plunkett Cooney’s Banking, Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights Practice Group.
Mr. Lerner has represented banks, other financial institutions ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Business Torts
- Commercial Real Estate
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Commercial Leasing
- Commercial Loans
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Shareholder Liability
- Tax Law
- Class Action
- Product Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Risk Management
- Cyber Attack
- Biometric Data
- Banking Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Internet Law
- Non-compete Agreements
- Consumer Protection
- Residential Liability
- Zoning and Planning
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Unfair Competition
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
- Proliferation of Security Cameras, Drones Doesn't Necessarily Reduce Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under the Law
- Does Sympathy or Empathy Have a Place in the Courtroom?
- No Light Yet at End of COVID-19 Real Estate Tunnel
- When are Clear, Unambiguous Contracts Nonetheless Ambiguous?
- What the Future may Hold for Michigan Real Estate Foreclosures and Evictions
- The Dispute Subject to Arbitration, or is it? Who Decides?
- Illinois Supreme Court Slams Courthouse Door on Non-residents' Product Liability Claims Against Non-resident Defendants for Injuries Suffered Outside State
- Supreme Court Rules Fully Funded Pension Plans Cannot be Sued Under ERISA for Mismanagement
- A Day in Someone Else’s Shoes: Can Mortgagees Challenge Ad Valorem Assessments?
- Landlords may be able to Recover Future Damages Even After Tenants Vacate Leased Premises