Rochelle's Daily Wire

Congress may have made a mistake in drafting, but the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) must control, Judge Grossman says.

Providing a necessary service for a Ponzi-schemer was enough to make an employee liable to return compensation as a fraudulent transfer.

Another opinion shows that Congress wrote Section 546(e) in a manner that goes far beyond protecting the securities markets in the U.S.

By continuing to litigate for 10 years on a lost cause, prejudgment interest will ‘up’ a fraudulent transfer defendant’s liability by 40%.

Expanding on dicta in Bellingham, the district court in Arizona finds no power to enter a final order in a preference suit against a defendant who did not consent to a final order in bankruptcy court.

Utah district judge decides that referral fees paid by a Ponzi scheme aren’t avoidable unless the recipient had reason to suspect there was fraud.

An expectancy interest in a trust isn’t “property” to underlay a fraudulent transfer suit.

North Carolina Judge disagrees with the Fifth Circuit on extending the statute of limitations to 10 years under Section 544(b)(1).

Proceeds from fraudulently transferred property can be recovered from subsequent transferees, Judge Rodriguez says, differing with the Tenth Circuit’s Generation Resources opinion.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to review another case defining the safe harbor in Section 546(e).