Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,434 Coral Petroleum, Inc. v. Banque Paribas-London

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the funds in question were held by the debtor subject to an “earmarking” transaction and held for another party
• noting that, although establishing the intent of the third-party lender is one way to prove lack of control, it is not the only way
• stating that the earmarking doctrine should not be extended beyond guarantor situations
• stating that the earmarking doctrine should not be extended beyond guarantor situations
• dismissing an avoidance action because the debtor “did not control the money to the extent that it became property of its estate”
• where debtor never had control of collateral pledged for repayment of loan no preference occurred upon transfer of funds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).