Legal Opinion

Gala Enterprises, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 9, 1998No. 96 Civ. 4864(DC)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. HBE Leasing Corp. v. FrankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  3. Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. HBE Leasing Corp. v. FrankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  5. United States v. McCombsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. RTC Mortgage Trust 1995-S/N1 v. SopherDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
  2. In Re Parklex Associates, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2010
  3. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Princeton Economic International Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
  4. Shams v. FisherDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API