IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: 

EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION 

RESOURCES, INC. 

 Debtor. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 09 B 39937 

WILLIAM A. BRANDT, JR., not 

individually but solely in his capacity as Plan 

Administrator for EQUIPMENT 

ACQUISITION RESOURCES, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

HORSESHOE HAMMOND, LLC, a/k/a 

HORSESHOE CASINO HAMMOND, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 12-cv-00271 

Hon. Edmond E. Chang 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Horseshoe Hammond, LLC (“Horseshoe”), pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Illinois, hereby moves for entry of an order awarding summary judgment 

to Horseshoe. In support of his motion, Horseshoe submits herewith a Memorandum Of Law In 

Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment (the “Memorandum”). 

1. William A. Brandt, Jr., as Plan Administrator for Equipment Acquisition 

Resources (“Brandt”), has sued Horseshoe to recover $8,278,000 in alleged fraudulent transfers 

(the “Payments”) that Brandt contends Equipment Acquisition Resources (“EAR”), the debtor in 

the underlying chapter 11 case, made to Sheldon Player and Donna Malone. Brandt’s theory of 

recovery is that Player and Malone subsequently transferred the fraudulently conveyed property 
2 

they received from EAR to Horseshoe in satisfaction of obligations that Player and Malone owed 

to Horseshoe. 

2. To prevail on his claim, Brandt must prove: (1) that EAR made fraudulent 

transfers to Player and Malone that may be avoided under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 or 548; (2) that the 

property transferred to Player and Malone was subsequently transferred to Horseshoe; and 

(3) that Horseshoe did not take the transfers it received for value, in good faith and without 

knowledge of the avoidability of the transfers. See 11 U.S.C. §§550(a), (b). 

3. As set forth in the Memorandum, the undisputed facts show that Horseshoe 

accepted the Payments identified in Counts I-III of Brandt’s Complaint from Player and Malone 

for value, in good faith, and without knowledge of their voidability. Accordingly, Horseshoe has 

a complete defense to Brandt’s Complaint under Section 550(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

4. Horseshoe is also entitled to summary judgment with respect to $1,609,117.00 of 

the Payments because Brandt’s expert cannot trace those payments from EAR to Horseshoe. 

5. Finally, Brandt has conceded in his discovery responses that Horseshoe accepted 

the Payments for value and without knowledge of their voidability. Accordingly, if the Court 

concludes that there is an issue of fact regarding Horseshoe’s good faith (and for the reasons set 

forth in the Memorandum, the Court should not so find), Horseshoe requests that the Court enter 

partial summary judgment finding that Horseshoe has proven these two elements of its Section 

550(b)(1) defense. 

 
3 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in his Memorandum, Horseshoe respectfully 

requests that this Court grant Horseshoe’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant such other 

relief as may be just. 

Dated: August 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

HORSESHOE HAMMOND, LLC 

By: /s/ Catherine Steege 

 One of its attorneys 

 Catherine Steege (06183529) 

 Melissa Hinds (06288246) 

 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

 353 N. Clark Street 

 Chicago, IL 60611-7603 

 PH: (312) 222-9350 

 FAX: (312) 527-0484