Source: https://avoidanceactionupdate.bayardlaw.com/tag/dominion-and-control/
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 11:33:01
Document Index: 283416396

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 548', '§ 548', '§ 544', '§ 3439', '§ 550', '§ 550', '§ 548', '§ 548', '§ 550', '§ 553', '§ 544', '§ 1304']

Dominion and control | Avoidance Action Update – A Bayard, P.A. Blog
Tag Archives: Dominion and control
Judge Houle (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) Addresses the Impact of Substantive Consolidation On Fraudulent Transfer Defenses in In re Empire Land, LLC
*Update as of 7/19/2016: Since the post below on 4/18/2016, this decision has been appealed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and remains pending.*
Judge Houle (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) recently applied the “dominion test” to a series of transfers in the In re Empire Land, LLC bankruptcy cases, finding a material issue of fact existed as to whether the fraudulent transfer defendant could use the funds as it saw fit – hence, whether it could be a transferee of the funds. Continue reading →
This entry was posted in Fraudulent Transfer – Actual Fraud (11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A)), Fraudulent Transfer – Constructive Fraud (11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B)), State Fraudulent Transfer (11 U.S.C. § 544) and tagged Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04, Dominion and control, Incomnet, Initial transferee, Judge Houle, Ninth Circuit, Substantive consolidation on April 18, 2016 by Bayard, P.A..
How Much Control Must a Bank Exert to be Considered an Initial Transferee Under 11 U.S.C. § 550? Can Substantive Consolidation be Applied Nunc Pro Tunc to Help ‘Create’ an Avoidance Action? Chief Judge Frank (Bankr. E.D. Pa.) Provides an Answer in In re Universal Marketing, Inc.
Chief Judge Frank of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued an opinion in Goldstein v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society (In re Universal Marketing, Inc.) that deals with certain issues not often seen in avoidance actions. Specifically, the opinion touches upon the level of control or dominion that a bank must exercise over a disputed conveyance for purposes of determining whether it was an “initial transferee” under 11 U.S.C. § 550. Continue reading →
This entry was posted in Fraudulent Transfer – Actual Fraud (11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A)), Fraudulent Transfer – Constructive Fraud (11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B)), Liability of Transferee (11 U.S.C. § 550), Setoff (11 U.S.C. § 553), State Fraudulent Transfer (11 U.S.C. § 544) and tagged 6 Del. C. § 1304, Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Dominion and control, Initial transferee, Judge Frank, Owens Corning, Setoff, Substantive consolidation, Third Circuit on December 7, 2015 by Bayard, P.A..