HRHI Winddown, LLC (Royal Paper, LLC) – Preference and Fraudulent Transfer Defense Lawyer

On July 22, 2025, approximately 8 adversary cases were opened in relation to the bankruptcy of HRHI Winddown, LLC (Royal Paper, LLC). If you did business with any of the Debtors or are named as a defendant below, contact us, to discuss possible defenses:

25-51191-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. Convermat Corporation
25-51192-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. CornerStone Adhesives & Packaging LLC
25-51193-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. El Paso Paper Box, Inc.
25-51194-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. International Paper Company
25-51195-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. Print Pro, Inc.
25-51196-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. Southwest Forest Products Inc.
25-51197-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. Sustana Fiber, LLC
25-51198-TMH Royal Paper, LLC v. WestRock – Southern Container LLC

Preference Defense Litigation and please see our page on Defense of Fraudulent Transfer Actions.

Common Defenses in Preference Actions

The United States Bankruptcy Code provides many affirmative defenses to preference actions, contained within Section 547(c). For example, the most common defenses that may be available to a Defendant under Section 547(c) may include:

• the transfer was a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the debtor (i.e., the debtor received something of value in exchange for the transfer); 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(1);
• after such transfer, Defendant gave new value to or for the benefit of the debtor (i.e., the Defendant extended additional credit to the Debtor after receiving the transfer) 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(4); or
• the transfer was in payment of a debt incurred by the debtor in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of the debtor and the recipient (i.e., Defendant made the transfer under ordinary business terms). 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(2).

Common Defenses in Fraudulent Transfer Cases

Among the more common defenses that may be available are that you provided reasonably equivalent value for a transfer that is now alleged to be constructively fraudulent or in good faith provided value to the debtor in exchange for the transfer. There may be other defenses available to you by showing that the Transfer does not fit the statutory predicates. For example, solvency of the debtor or that the transfer was not actually an interest of the debtor in property.