Snuffin v. McAdoo

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 subsequent transferee only has a statute of limitations defense to avoidance if the trustee “failed to bring any avoidance action with respect to the initial transfer (against either the initial or subsequent transferee) within section 546(a
• noting that a subsequent transferee can assert “defense[s] to avoidance available to an initial transferee, unless collateral estoppel and res judicata apply”
• finding that the “ambiguities” in the statute are clarified by “the overall structure of the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance and recovery provisions”
• “[T]he subsequent transferee in possession of that transfer may raise any defenses to avoidance available to the initial transferee. . . .”
• “[T]he subsequent transferee in possession of that transfer may raise any defenses to avoidance available to the initial transferee. . . .”
• “[T]he Court directs that the following adversary proceedings be returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order ….”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).