Lustig v. Weisz (In Re Unified Commercial Capital, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that holding otherwise would ignore “the universally accepted fundamental commercial principal [sic] that, when you loan an entity money for a period of time in good faith, you have given value and are entitled to a reasonable return”
• “[T]he fraudulent conveyance statutes cannot and should not be utilized by courts as a super preference statute to effect a further reallocation and redistribution that should be specifically provided for in a statute enacted by Congress.”
• “I simply do not agree that it is against sound public policy to allow an innocent investor victim to enforce a contract with an entity engaged in a ‘Ponzi’ scheme to pay a reasonable rate of interest for the use (loan) of funds.”
• promising twelve percent interest on investment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).