Malave v. UMG Recordings 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 “the full amount of the Judgment,” which was entered before the transfer and was pending appeal, should be considered in solvency analysis
• holding that “the full amount of the Judgment,” which was entered before the transfer and was pending appeal, should be considered in solvency analysis
• “A judgment establishing liability against a debtor, entered prepetition, is not a contingent debt for purposes of determining eligibility under section 109(e).”
• “unilateral act of recording [] Notice of Judgment Lien cannot be characterized as being within the ordinary course of business of both the debtor and the creditor as required by section 547(c)(2).”
• claim is not contingent if events giving rise to liability occurred prepetition
• “[B]ecause the events giving rise to the Judgment occurred pre-petition and prior to each of the transfers at issue, the Judgment is not a contingent debt and was not contingent as to any of the relevant transfers.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).