Gala Enterprises, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION
CHIN, District Judge.
Hewlett Packard Company (“Hewlett Packard”) seeks ari order holding that a $500,000 fee paid by Gala Enterprises, Inc. (“Gala”) to the law firm Fischbein • Badillo • Wagner • Harding (the “Firm”) was a fraudulent conveyance subject to attachment in this case. On May 28, 1997, after reviewing the parties’ initial submissions, I determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary because certain facts were unclear, including: who had actually paid the fee; for whom services were to be provided; whether $500,-000 was fair consideration for the services…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- HBE Leasing Corp. v. FrankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- HBE Leasing Corp. v. FrankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- United States v. McCombsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- RTC Mortgage Trust 1995-S/N1 v. SopherDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- In Re Parklex Associates, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Princeton Economic International Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Shams v. FisherDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000