Filed December 10, 2013
denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001). 13 Order at *7; see BLI, 480 B.R. at 522 (“the Trustee will still be required to prove that the transfers from BLMIS to Fairfield were fraudulent and improper in connection with its suit against BLI as subsequent transferee… So, too, BLI will be afforded its due process rights to contest the avoidability of these initial transfers”); Thompson v. Jonovich (In re Food & Fibre Protection, Ltd.), 168 B.R. 408, 422 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1994) (court holding subsequent transferee had right to raise whatever defenses were available to the initial transferee). 14 Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., 426 F. Supp. 2d at 129; City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 2012 WL 4959502, *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012) (“To the extent that Pennisi relies on the arguments made to this Court before issuing this Order, the Court notes that it has already considered and rejected those arguments as unpersuasive.”)
Filed November 30, 2012
[T]he Trustee must establish that it is proper to avoid the transfer from the Debtor to Jonovich, then establish that J.S. Stephens, as the subsequent recipient of the money the Debtor paid Jonovitch, is a “transferee” from whom payment may be recovered under Section 550(a), subsections (1) or (2). Thompson v. Jonovich (In re Food & Fibre Prot., Ltd.), 168 B.R. 408, 416 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1994). In order to recover under section 550, the Trustee must establish that the transfer to the Bank was avoidable under section 547 and that the Bank was a transferee of the funds.