Greenwald v. Latham & Watkins (In Re Trans-End Technology, Inc.) (1998)
green
· 23 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Anna Phillips, in her capacity as the Liquidating Trustee of the ONH Liquidating Trust v. SS Associates LLC (2026)
Ohio 1998). 46 Id. at 104 (emphasis added). must actually avoid an initial transfer as a prerequisite to obtaining recovery from subsequent transferees.”47 The central flaw of the Slack-Horner line of reasoning, which is implicitly accepted even in cases like International Administrative Services that reject its holding, is that it fails to recognize that the “avoidance” of a transfer is simply an element of claim that needs to be proven against the defendant against whom re…
emphasis added
green
Official Committee of Unsecured, Creditors v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In Re M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc.) (2008)
N.D.Ohio 2001)(the statutory language of § 550 and its legislative history leads to the conclusion that a trustee must first avoid an underlying transfer before recovery); Greenwald v. Latham Watkins (In re Trans-End Tech., Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 104-05 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998)(under the plain and unambiguous language of § 550(a), a prerequisite to recovery from any transferee is that the initial transfer first be avoided rather than merely proven to be avoidable); Brandt v. Hick…
under the plain and unambiguous language of § 550(a), a prerequisite to recovery from any transferee is that the initial transfer first be avoided rather than merely proven to be avoidable
See, e.g., Weinman v. Simons (In re Slack–Horner Foundries Co.), 971 F.2d 577, 580 (10th Cir.1992) (“[I]n order to recover from a subsequent transferee the trustee must first have the transfer of the debtor's interest to the initial transferee avoided under § 548.”); Greenwald v. Latham & Watkins (In re Trans-End Tech., Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 105 (Bankr.
“[B]ased upon the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 550 , the Court finds that a prerequisite to recovery from any transferee is that the initial transfer must first be avoided rather than merely proven to be avoidable.”
Greenwald v. Latham & Watkins (In re Trans-End Tech, Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 104 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998).
green
Bash v. Textron Financial Corp. (2015)
Although Fortress relies on In re Trans-End, Technology, Inc., 230 B.R. 101, 105 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1998) for the proposition that a successful avoidance action is required, the Trustee correctly notes that Trans-End has been widely criticized.
(In re Fabrikant & Sons, Inc.), 394 B.R. 721, 741 (S.D.N.Y.2008); In re Trans-End Technology, Inc., 230 B.R. 101, 105 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998). 15 . 5 Collier on Bankmptcy ¶ 550.02. 16 .
green
Woods & Erickson, LLP v. Leonard (In Re AVI, Inc.) (2008)
Corp. (In re Enron Corp.), 343 B.R. 75, 79-80 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006); Greenwald v. Latham & Watkins (In re Trans-End Tech., Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 104 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998).
green
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Bankruptcy Estate of Felt Manufacturing Co. v. Foss (In Re … (2007)
Corp. (In re Enron Corp.), 343 B.R. 75, 80-82 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2006) (dismissing claims against mediate transferees because the complaint did not first seek to avoid the transfers as to the initial transferees); Greenwald v. Latham & Watkins (In re Trans-End Tech., Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 105 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998) (granting a motion to dismiss where the trustee failed to either avoid the initial transfer by the debtor or name the initial transferee as a defendant concluding that …
green
Advanced Telecommunications Network, Inc. v. Allen (In Re Advanced Telecommunications Network, Inc.) (2005)
Kendall v. Sorani (In re Richmond Produce Company, Inc.), 195 B.R. 455, 463 (N.D.Cal.1996); contra, In re Trans-End Tech, 230 B.R. 101, 104 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998).
green
Cavanaugh v. Zimmerman (Linc Capital, Inc.) (2004)
Inc.), 230 B.R. 101, 104 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998); Kendall v. Sorani (In re Richmond Produce Co.), 195 B.R. 455, 463 (N.D.Cal.1996), are equally unavailing.