The back-and-forth continues regarding alleged fraudulent and unauthorized transfers prior to Dlubak Corp.’s bankruptcy proceedings—transfers which the defendants deny were improper.

On March 30, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Dlubak Corp. filed an amended complaint to avoid fraudulent and unauthorized transfers against Dlubak Glass Co. and Frank C. and Ave Maria Dlubak, stemming from an ongoing bankruptcy case being handled in the United States Bankruptcy Court Western District of Pennsylvania.

In separate answers and affirmative defenses to the complaint—dated April 30—both Dlubak Glass Co. and the Dlubaks deny allegations of four counts of fraudulent transfer, as well as a count of avoidance of post petition transfer, a count of recovery of avoided transfers and a count of unjust enrichment.

In the complaint, the committee alleges that the Debtor was unable to satisfy a secured claim of $3.1 million to First Commonwealth Bank, though Dlubak Corp. insists in its answer that “First Commonwealth Bank has been paid in full; also, the Plan filed by the Committee does, in fact, acknowledge that all secured creditors were paid in full from the sale of Dlubak Corporation’s assets.”

The Dlubaks further deny receiving any improper payments despite the Committee’s allegations that a total of “$83,731.50 in payments from Dlubak Glass were made solely for the benefit of the scrap glass owned by the Debtor during the Relevant Period,” according to court documents.

The complaint alleges that “the Debtor sold clear and mixed scrap glass to Dlubak Glass on a frequent basis,” and that “despite the sale of scrap glass from the Debtor to Dlubak Glass, payments on such sales were made directly to Frank individually, not the Debtor.”

In the Dlubaks’ answer, the defendants maintain that “Frank Dlubak received less than $100,000.00 cumulatively from such sales, injected in excess of $2,500,000.00 over the same time period into the Debtor and credited such payments in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles against such injections. Additionally, these occurred while the Debtor was solvent.”

Dlubak Glass Co. denies that “the Debtor did not receive adequate value since payments to which it would have otherwise been entitled to were instead made to Frank individually,” as the complaint alleges.

“[Dlubak] Glass Company paid for the scrap glass received in accordance with payment instructions provided by an authorized representative of Debtor,” the answer reads.

In other developments related to the case, a joint discovery plan and statement of estimated time of trial was approved on March 31 for an ongoing case between the plan administrator for Dlubak Corp.’s bankruptcy proceedings and the Dlubaks.

Dlubak Specialty Glass, which is owned by Consolidated Glass Holdings, is a separate company and not a part of the bankruptcy proceedings or litigation.