Rochelle's Daily Wire

Although a stock purchase and a loan payoff were one month apart, a district judge in Indiana found a sufficient nexus to invoke the safe harbor and dismiss a fraudulent transfer suit.

The high court’s ruling on the Takings Clause also seems to mean that real estate tax foreclosures can be avoided as constructively fraudulent transfers.

A federal district judge in New York holds that the safe harbor in Section 546(g) doesn’t preempt state fraudulent transfer laws.

The Seventh Circuit explained how preponderance of the evidence became the standard of proof for turnovers and dischargeability when the Bankruptcy Code replaced the Bankruptcy Act.

Damages for a constructively fraudulent transfer were the difference between what the buyer paid and what the business was really worth, based on accurate income and expenses.

Although a disclaimed inheritance is ordinarily beyond the avoiding powers, a trustee can step into the shoes of the IRS to set aside the disclaimer.

The opinion by Justice Barrett largely bases the outcome on the use of the passive voice in Section 523(a)(2)(A).

If you want a prejudgment asset freeze, ask for equitable relief and the recovery of specific property, Judge Goldblatt says.

The high court will decide whether a real estate tax foreclosure can violate the Takings Clause and whether Section 106 abrogates sovereign immunity as to Native American tribes.

Will the Supreme Court add words to Section 523(a)(2)(A) to yield a result that the justices find more palatable?