Trainor Committee Continues to Seek $14.4 Million in Preferential Payment Claims

The Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the bankruptcy case of Trainor Glass remains in negotiations with a number of industry companies on its recently

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 Metal Fabricator Inc., for a claim of $20,000;
• Architectural Systems Inc., for a claim of $813,835.22;
• 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;
• Astro Sheet Metal Co. Inc., for a claim of $52,282.51;
• Barnes Metalcrafters Incc., for a claim of $119,020.00;
• Benchmark Sales Agency Inc. (dba Custom Window Co.), for a claim of $16,245.00;
• Brothers Glass & Glazing LLC, for a claim of $23,792.40;
• Building Envelope Solutions LLC, for a claim of $477,151.33;
• C.R. Laurence Co. Inc., for a claim of $171,170.80;
• Coyote Glass LLC, for a claim of $66,977.12;
• Curtainwall Erectors Inc., for a claim of $619,695.26;
• Efco Corp., for a claim of $718,583.71;
• Facade Concepts Inc., for a claim of $76,097.81;
• Fastenal Co., for a claim of $204,116.50;
• Firestone Building Products Co. LLC (dba Una-Clad), for a claim of $114,012.10;
• Hafele America Co., for a claim of $8,062.58;
• Kawneer Co., for a claim of $147,448.89;
• Klein USA Inc., for a claim of $63,886.53;
• Mammen Glass & Mirror, for a claim of $67,469.94;
• McGrory Glass Inc., for a claim of $75,740.73;
• Mestek Inc. (dba Linel Singature), for a claim of $18,533.10;
• Midwest Wholesale Hardware Co., for a claim of $51,795.74;
• Nupress Group Inc. (dba Nupress Facades), for a claim of $52,960.00;
• Pittco Architectural Metals, for a claim of $24,723.06;
• Security Lock Distributors Inc., for a claim of $35,069.96;
• Sentech Architectural Systems LLC, for a claim of $24,024.15;
• Super Sky Products Enterprises LLC (dba Supersky Products Inc.), for a claim of $27,112.50;
• The William L. Bonnell Co. Inc., for a claim of $182,690.86;
• Torsten Glass Co., for a claim of $10,820.57;
• Tremco Inc., for a claim of $69,250.17;
• Trulite Glass & Aluminum Solutions, for a claim of $503,266.43;
• Viracon Inc., for a claim of $1.2 million;
• W & W Glass LLC, for a claim of $481,924;
• Western Extrusions Corp., for a claim of $47,928.66; and
• Blue Sky Glass Design Inc., for a claim of $29,500.95.

According to the report, a claim for $64,600 made against Dakota Sealants Inc. and a claim for $14,000 against Cayley Nelson have been dismissed “after a presentation of defenses.”

A number of the claims were recently

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 that “each preferential transfer constituted a transfer of interest of the debtor in property,” according to court documents.

“Each preferential transfer was made to or for the benefit of the defendant, within the meaning of § 547(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, because each preferential transfer either reduced or fully satisfied a debt then owed by the debtor to the defendant,” wrote the committee in its numerous preferential payment complaints, filed in April. “Each preferential transfer was made for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor to the defendant before such transfer was made. The debtor was insolvent throughout the preference period because the sum of its representative debts was greater than the fair value of its respective assets.”

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

If your company currently is involved in a preferential payment claim with the Trainor estate, please email