The standard for defeating equitable disgorgement is lower than the proof required to fend off receipt of a fraudulent transfer.

The Madoff case makes more law: A claim against a bankrupt estate can’t be set off against liability for receipt of a fraudulent transfer because one arose before bankruptcy and the other arose after.

The fraudulent intent of an individual who controls a corporation can be imputed to the corporation itself, even if the board is unaware of fraud.

An alter ego may be of the same ilk as a partnership or agency, so there may be no inconsistency between the Fifth Circuit opinion and the Bartenwerfer concurrence.

The Second Circuit found discretion to avoid a constructively fraudulent transfer of exempt property that would have enabled the debtor to pay her creditors in full.

A district judge in New York reversed the bankruptcy court, which had held that a Kuwaiti public pension fund was not entitled to sovereign immunity for having engaged in commercial activity.

Now a circuit judge, a former bankruptcy judge makes quick work of a troublesome issue about property of the estate.

Bankruptcy Judge Klinette H. Kindred declined to expand Bartenwerfer by imputing fraud or larceny when the debtor wasn’t a partner or agent.

The circuits are now split 3/1, with the majority finding a waiver of sovereign immunity under Section 544(b)(1) for lawsuits by a trustee based on claims that an actual creditor could not have brought outside of bankruptcy.

Just because the debtor orchestrated a fraudulent transfer, the Seventh Circuit tells us there’s nothing for a trustee recover if there was no diminution of the estate.