Tenth Circuit and its BAP follow the same controlling authority but reach opposite results.
Does Rule 9006(a) expand the 30-day window for perfection, and can perfection be “substantially contemporaneous” even if perfection occurs after 30 days?
New York district judge agrees with the ABI Journal: Congress did not succeed in requiring trustees to file small-dollar avoidance actions in the defendant’s district.
Circuits are split on the date of transfer resulting from a garnishment.
The expansive definition of a ‘financial institution’ allows fraudulent transfers to be structured so that no one will ever be held liable.
Judge Thuma describes nonstatutory exceptions to the statutes of limitations in Sections 546(a) and 550(f).
The First Circuit BAP evidently believes that a transfer occurred, even though an ordinary check wasn’t cashed.
The case from the Third Circuit was not a good vehicle for granting certiorari on either issue, even though there is a circuit split on nonconsensual, third-party releases.