Gogolin v. Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that it was implausible that a bank would knowingly lend ever-larger amounts to fraudulent companies
• ruling that it was implausible that a bank would knowingly lend ever-larger amounts to fraudulent companies
• concluding that it was implausible, “bordering on the absurd,” that banks would continue to lend to the debtor despite their awareness that the debtor and its affiliates were insolvent and merely shuffling around money to meet their short term obligations
• explaining that “if the transaction is different in kind from those originally alleged, or if new facts and transactions are alleged, the new allegation does not relate back”
• finding that newly alleged avoidance claims do not relate back because “[t]he general allegation that transfers from October 2004 until Appellees sold their claims were fraudulent fails to identify any particular objectionable transactions.”
• finding that newly alleged avoidance claims do not relate back because “[t]he general allegation that transfers from October 2004 until Appellees sold their claims were fraudulent fails to identify any particular objectionable transactions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).