Janvey v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding “that the evidence presented to the district court overwhelmingly established that, from at least as early as 1999, the Stanford corporations were nothing more than robotic tools of Stanford’s elaborate Ponzi scheme”
• applying the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which in pertinent part is identical to Maine's, and using the terms \could\ and \should\ interchangeably
• finding wide endorsement for proposition that a receiver “may recover assets or funds that the principal fraudulently diverted to third parties”
• applying the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which in pertinent part is identical to Maine’s, and using the terms “could” and “should” interchangeably
• affirming a receiver’s standing “to assert the claims of a receivership entity against third-party recipients of the entity’s assets that have been fraudulently transferred”
• addressing Texas law requiring “that a fraudulent-transfer claim be filed within one year of when the fraudulent nature of the transfer was or reasonably could have been discovered”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).