Defences (Allan Axelrod, 3 Jul 1996)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Allan Axelrod
Date:	Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:48:36 EST
Re:	Defences

If the defence were allowed, the payment might still be a voidable preference, at least under US bankruptcy law. But it is not clear who would avoid it. The trustee in b would have no interest (on behalf of the creditors) in recovering the plaintiff's trust money.

and therefore the defendant would argue that what it had received was not preferential as not 'property of the estate'????

Allan Axelrod
Rutgers Law School
15 Washington St., Newark, NJ 07102
(201) 648-5373

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.