Ralph Janvey v. Tonya Dokken

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because a contract promising returns on investment in a Ponzi scheme is void, payment of such returns does not reduce an antecedent contractual debt or compensate an investor for the time value of his money
• agreeing with the receiver that he had standing because he acted on behalf of entities used by the Ponzi schemers, which are considered defrauded creditors under the Texas UFTA
• choice of law issues for fraudulent transfer claims are generally governed by the forum state in which the bankruptcy court is sitting
• choice of law issues for fraudulent transfer claims are generally governed by the forum state in which the bankruptcy court is sitting
• choice of law issues for fraudulent transfer claims are generally governed by the forum state in which the bankruptcy court is sitting
• “As prior opinions of this Court and the district court have made clear, the Stanford Ponzi scheme was centered in and operated out of Houston, Texas.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).