context: The Court is persuaded that the Bankruptcy Court was correct in drawing this conclusion. First, NOVA was found to be legally required to reimburse the Customers, and therefore "there was no consideration to support the purported assignment."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 145 B.R. 972, 972
citation_a.parenthetical: finding a purported assignment to be invalid for lack of consideration because the bank was already hable "by virtue of nonbankruptcy law prior to the execution of' the assignments
citation_a.sentence: In re Mid-Am., 145 B.R. at 972 (finding a purported assignment to be invalid for lack of consideration because the bank was already hable “by virtue of nonbankruptcy law prior to the execution of’ the assignments); see also In re Mel-Hart, 156 B.R. at 607 (“There can be no assignment from employees to [claiming company] because there was no consideration to support the purported assignment.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 156 B.R. 607, 607
citation_b.parenthetical: "There can be no assignment from employees to [claiming company] because there was no consideration to support the purported assignment."
citation_b.sentence: In re Mid-Am., 145 B.R. at 972 (finding a purported assignment to be invalid for lack of consideration because the bank was already hable “by virtue of nonbankruptcy law prior to the execution of’ the assignments); see also In re Mel-Hart, 156 B.R. at 607 (“There can be no assignment from employees to [claiming company] because there was no consideration to support the purported assignment.”).