Laker v. Vallette (In Re Toyota of Jefferson, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a creditor was entitled to § 547(c)(4)'s subsequent-new-value defense because, although the debtor had paid for the new value provided, it did so \with preferences that were not 'otherwise unavoidable' \
• holding that a creditor was entitled to section 547(c)(4)’s subsequent new value defense because, although the debtor had paid for the new value provided, it did so “with preferences that were not ‘otherwise unavoidable’”
• holding that a creditor was entitled to section 547(c)(4)’s subsequent new value defense because, although the debtor had paid for the new value provided, it did so “with preferences that were not ‘otherwise unavoidable’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).