Legal Opinion
Blonder v. CUMBERLAND ENGINEERING
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 29, 1999No. E022038PublishedCited by 1 opinion
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHLI, J.
Respondent David Blonder, as assignee for the benefit of creditors of Envirothene, Inc., obtained a judgment invalidating security interests held by appellant Cumberland Engineering in certain assets of Envirothene, as preferential transfers under Code of Civil Procedure section 1800. We affirm the judgment, concluding (1) the statute of limitations did not expire on Blender’s preference claim; and (2) Blonder had standing to bring the claim even though he had sold the assets subject to the security interests.
I
Factual and Procedural Background
A. Facts
In February 1995,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Barber v. McCord Auto Supply, Inc. (In Re Pearson Industries, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · 1995
- Wellman v. WellmanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1991
- McCarthy v. Navistar Financial Corp. (In Re Vogel Van & Storage, Inc.)District Court, N.D. New York · 1997
- Enserv Co. v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula (In Re Enserv Co.)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Grass v. OsbornCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moecker v. AntoineDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003