  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
denial of prejudgment interest.)
Dzikowski v. Northern Trust Bank Of Florida, N.A. (In re Prudential of Florida Leasing, Inc.), 478 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2007) (Single satisfaction requirement of S 550(d) looked to federal common law and not to Florida state law to determine whether Trustee's fraudulent transfer claim had been satisfied in previous settlement with other defendants.)
Boyer v. Belavilas (In re Belavilas), 474 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2007) (Avoided fraudulent transfer could be recovered from custodian of Uniform Transfers to Minors Act ("UTMA") account because custodian was initial transferee for whose benefit transfer was made under S 550(a)(1).)
In re Senior Cottages of America, LLC, 482 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. Apr. 2, 2007) (While bankruptcy court had discretion to deny the trustee's motion to amend his fraudulent transfer complaint against insiders of the debtor, the district court erroneously upheld the denial on the basis that the trustee did not have standing to assert a claim when the damages would be payable to creditors. A trustee holds claims belonging to the debtor at the time of filing pursuant to S 704(1), and claims that a debtor was wrongfully deprived of its assets pre-petition is a claim a trustee has standing to assert.)
In re Ontos Inc., 478 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. Mar. 1, 2007) (Creditors' alleged fraudulent transfer, breach of fiduciary duty, successor liability, and alter ego claims against the debtor's directors and the purchaser of its assets were estate property pursuant to S 541(a)(1).)
Hill v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (In re MS55, Inc.), 477 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. Feb. 13 2007) (Chapter 7 Trustee was barred from asserting claims against creditor, where pre-conversion Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession waived said claims.)
In re Perlin, 497 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. Aug. 3, 2007) (BAPCPA's amendment of S 707(b) to create a presumption of abuse against debtors who have primarily consumer debts and have sufficient income to repay their debts did not prohibit a bankruptcy court from considering a debtor's income and expenses in ruling on a motion to dismiss under S 707(a). In deciding a motion to dismiss under S 707(a), a bankruptcy court may consider a debtor's substantial earnings and lavish lifestyle together with any other facts and circumstances surrounding the debtor's Chapter 7 filing.
