UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION, et al.

, Debtors. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Chapter 11 Case No. 05-55927-R (Jointly Administered) Tax Identification No. 13-3489233 Honorable Steven W. Rhodes

COMERICA BANKS RESPONSE TO THE COLLINS & AIKMAN POST-CONSUMMATION TRUSTS TWENTY-SEVENTH OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS Comerica Bank, as Assignee of the Avatar Group, Inc. (Comerica) for its response to Debtors Post-Consummation Trusts (Trust) Twenty-Seventh Omnibus Objection to Claims1, states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Comerica filed claim #4846 against Debtors asserting a secured claim of

$1,443,870 (Claim). 2. The Claim arises from the assignment of certain accounts receivable between the

Avatar Group, Inc. (a borrower of Comerica) and Debtors. Prepetition, Avatar Group, Inc. supplied automotive component parts to Debtors. Avatar assigned its claim against Debtors to Comerica. TWENTY-SEVENTH OMNIBUS OBJECTION

Debtors 28th Omnibus Objection to Claims [Docket No. 9055] seeks to reclassify the Claim from a secured claim to an unsecured claim. Comerica has no objection to the Debtors proposed treatment of its Claim in the 28th Omnibus Objection.

0W[;(%,
0555927080512000000000011

+U

Detroit_844162_1

3.

On April 4, 2008, Debtors filed the Twenty-Seventh Omnibus Objection to

Claims (Insufficient Books and Records) (Objection) [Docket No. 9054] seeking to expunge the Claim on the basis that Debtors books and records do not support the Claim. 4. In the Objection, Debtors seek to disallow the Claim. Debtors do not give any

legal reason for the proposed disallowance. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION 5. In the Objection, Debtors are asking the Court to disallow the Claim. Comerica

objects to the disallowance of the Claim and the Court should deny this relief because there is no authority allowing it and the Debtors have not cited any such authority in the Objection. 6. Rule 3001(f) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides that [a]

proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. As this Court has stated [i]f a party objects to the claim, the objecting party carries the burden of going forward with evidence to overcome the prima facie validity and amount of the claim. If the objecting party produces evidence to refute at least one of the allegations essential to the claims legal suffering, the burden of persuasion shifts back to the claimant. In re Hughes, 313 BR 205, 208-209 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2004). 7. In the Objection, Debtors do not provide any evidence whatsoever to support their

proposed disallowance of the Claim, let alone any evidence sufficient to refute the prima facie validity of the Claim. Because Debtors have not rebutted the prima facie validity of the Claim, the Objection should be denied with respect to the Claim. 8. Comerica reserves all of its rights and remedies.

2
Detroit_844162_1

RELIEF REQUESTED THEREFORE, Comerica respectfully requests that the Court deny the relief requested under the Objection as to the Claim and that the Court allow the Claim in the amount in which it was filed. BODMAN LLP By: /s/ Ralph E. McDowell Ralph E. McDowell (P39235) David J. Nowaczewski (P68950) Attorneys for Comerica Bank 1901 St. Antoine Street 6th Floor at Ford Field Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 393-7592

May 12, 2008

3
Detroit_844162_1