Cynergy Data entered post-sale liquidation with plan effectiveness on January 14, 2011, recorded in the effective-date notice Dkt. 1249. An August 2, 2013 stipulation Dkt. 1584 recorded the parties’ agreement, subject to court approval, to dismiss Marcelo Paladini’s appeal with prejudice; the liquidation plan Dkt. 1190 provides the path for realizing remaining assets, resolving claims and distributing proceeds to creditors.

Cynergy Data’s September 1, 2009 Chapter 11 proceeding reached plan effectiveness on January 14, 2011, following a sale of substantially all operating assets. The effective-date notice Dkt. 1249 records confirmation of the joint liquidation plan on December 21, 2010 and its subsequent effectiveness for Cynergy Data and its affiliated debtors.

The merchant-services and payment-processing business entered bankruptcy to complete a going-concern sale after accounting restatements and liquidity pressure. The November 2010 disclosure statement Dkt. 1128 reports that errors uncovered in March 2009 led to restated 2007 and 2008 results with substantially lower EBITDA and net income, while the economic downturn strained operations. A potentially underfunded reserve account and threatened bank setoff prompted a July 2009 forbearance agreement that provided operating liquidity while the company pursued a buyer.

Court-authorized cash collateral and DIP financing supported operations through the sale process, including up to $7.5 million of interchange and network-fee advances under the interim financing order Dkt. 49. The disclosure statement Dkt. 1128 describes a separate working-capital DIP facility capped at $9 million and reports that the sale to a ComVest affiliate closed on October 26, 2009 for $81 million of consideration: $67 million in cash and $14 million in subordinated debt consideration. Of the cash proceeds, $38 million went into a cure escrow for assigned contracts. The working-capital DIP and Harris Bank interchange obligations were repaid in full from sale proceeds.

The joint liquidation plan Dkt. 1190 assigns remaining assets and retained causes of action to a liquidation trust for asset realization, litigation recoveries, claims resolution and distributions. General unsecured creditors receive residual proceeds only after secured claims and the specified priority claims are paid in full; equity receives no distribution and is canceled. This creditor-recovery process, including realization of the retained $14 million promissory note, is the plan’s continuing implementation path.

Postconfirmation litigation concerned enforcement of the plan and a rolling-reserve settlement. The December 28, 2012 enforcement order Dkt. 1570 upheld the settlement and confirmation orders and permanently enjoined Marcelo Paladini from prosecuting his Southern District of New York action against BMO Harris Bank and Moneris. The latest filing, an August 2, 2013 stipulation of dismissal Dkt. 1584, records the parties’ agreement, subject to court approval, to dismiss his related Delaware district-court appeal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.

Cynergy Data entered post-sale liquidation with plan effectiveness on January 14, 2011, recorded in the effective-date notice Dkt. 1249. An August 2, 2013 stipulation Dkt. 1584 recorded the parties’ agreement, subject to court approval, to dismiss Marcelo Paladini’s appeal with prejudice; the liquidation plan Dkt. 1190 provides the path for realizing remaining assets, resolving claims and distributing proceeds to creditors.

Cynergy Data’s September 1, 2009 Chapter 11 proceeding reached plan effectiveness on January 14, 2011, following a sale of substantially all operating assets. The effective-date notice Dkt. 1249 records confirmation of the joint liquidation plan on December 21, 2010 and its subsequent effectiveness for Cynergy Data and its affiliated debtors.

The merchant-services and payment-processing business entered bankruptcy to complete a going-concern sale after accounting restatements and liquidity pressure. The November 2010 disclosure statement Dkt. 1128 reports that errors uncovered in March 2009 led to restated 2007 and 2008 results with substantially lower EBITDA and net income, while the economic downturn strained operations. A potentially underfunded reserve account and threatened bank setoff prompted a July 2009 forbearance agreement that provided operating liquidity while the company pursued a buyer.

Court-authorized cash collateral and DIP financing supported operations through the sale process, including up to $7.5 million of interchange and network-fee advances under the interim financing order Dkt. 49. The disclosure statement Dkt. 1128 describes a separate working-capital DIP facility capped at $9 million and reports that the sale to a ComVest affiliate closed on October 26, 2009 for $81 million of consideration: $67 million in cash and $14 million in subordinated debt consideration. Of the cash proceeds, $38 million went into a cure escrow for assigned contracts. The working-capital DIP and Harris Bank interchange obligations were repaid in full from sale proceeds.

The joint liquidation plan Dkt. 1190 assigns remaining assets and retained causes of action to a liquidation trust for asset realization, litigation recoveries, claims resolution and distributions. General unsecured creditors receive residual proceeds only after secured claims and the specified priority claims are paid in full; equity receives no distribution and is canceled. This creditor-recovery process, including realization of the retained $14 million promissory note, is the plan’s continuing implementation path.

Postconfirmation litigation concerned enforcement of the plan and a rolling-reserve settlement. The December 28, 2012 enforcement order Dkt. 1570 upheld the settlement and confirmation orders and permanently enjoined Marcelo Paladini from prosecuting his Southern District of New York action against BMO Harris Bank and Moneris. The latest filing, an August 2, 2013 stipulation of dismissal Dkt. 1584, records the parties’ agreement, subject to court approval, to dismiss his related Delaware district-court appeal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.