Nisselson v. Softbank Am Corp. (In Re MarketXT Holdings Corp.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an actual fraudulent transfer claim fails because, inter alia, the parties’ fraudulent intent was insufficiently alleged given the total absence of such badges except inadequacy of consideration
• holding that the harm must be “neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent”
• noting that the debtor “must plead the intent of the transferor (under the Bankruptcy Code) and the intent of the transferor and transferee (under NYDCL)”
• requiring that both the intent of the transferor and the transferee be pled
• suggesting the same in the context of actual fraud claims brought under both Section 548 of the Code and Section 276 of the NYDCL
• dismissing claim because, among other things, “the Complaint’s allegations [were] not generally adequate on the issue of control, and Plaintiffs certainly [did] not adequately pled [sic] that Softbank was able to control the Debtor’s disposition of its property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).