Archive and Content Search
At the beginning of February, the plan administrator for Dlubak Corp.’s ongoing bankruptcy case asked for a third extension of post confirmation deadlines, a motion that was granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania. Ten days after the extension, a complaint was filed against the Dlubaks “to avoid and recover fraudulent transfers.”
On February 2, the plan administrator, Lawrence C. Bolla, requested the deadline for “claims objections, adversary proceedings, contested matters, motions or applications … by another approximately 90 days … to allow him additional time to investigate any and all claims the Debtor may have for turnover of property of the estate, fraudulent transfers, and any other claim or cause of action preserved under section 13.8 of the Plan, together with existing claims already filed by court.”
This time around, the extension brought about additional action.
On February 12, Bolla filed a “Complaint to Avoid Fraudulent Transfers” against Frank and Ave Maria Dlubak (the Dlubaks) “to avoid and recover fraudulent transfers … made to the Dlubaks between August 7, 2009 and August 7, 2013.” The latter date is the day the Dlubak Corp. filed for bankruptcy.
The complaint claims “The Debtor made transfers during the Relevant Period in the amount of approximately $1,185,254.59 to or for the benefit of the Dlubaks.” It alleges that those transfers were deposited into one of their joint bank accounts “of which they enjoyed unfettered use and access.”
It continues, “The Debtor received no goods, services, or other benefit in return for the Transfers to the Dlubaks during the relevant period.”
The complaint cites four counts of fraudulent transfers, a count of Recovery of Avoided Transfers, a count of Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Debtor, and a count of Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Creditors.
“Frank and Ave Maria breached their fiduciary duties to the Debtor by allowing and/or directing the Debtor’s funds to be transferred to them personally for their own use and benefit during the Relevant Period and as a direct and proximate result, the Debtor incurred substantial damages and suffered severe harm,” the complaint alleges. “… the Plan Administrator demands judgment in its favor and against the Dlubaks in the amount of the Transfers, plus interest accruing from the date of the Transfer, the cost of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.”
The Dlubaks have until March 16 to respond to a summons issued or will by default deem consent of the judgment.
Dlubak Specialty Glass, which is owned by Consolidated Glass Holdings, is not a part of the bankruptcy proceedings.
