Van Dyck/Columbia Printing v. Katz (In Re Van Dyck/Columbia Printing)

How courts have described this case

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

• “Section 547(c)(4) was not designed to limit credit for subsequent advances only to advances that remained unpaid, as such an interpretation would limit the exemption in § 547(c)(4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).