re Sharp Int’l Corp.), 302 B.R. 760, 779-80 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (Trager, J.) ("Sharp International"). 11 . See Kaplan Breslaw Ash, 264 B.R. at 328-29. 12 . Id. at 330 n. 71. 13 . Id. at 330. 14 . 301 B.R. at 805 (internal citations and quotations omitted). See also Sharp International, supra note 10, 302 B.R. at 780 ("In a sense, all preferences prejudice the unfavored creditors, inasmuch as the debtor’s remaining assets are by definition insufficient to fully cover the debts owed to them. However, the correction of this unfairness is not the aim of fraudulent conveyance law."); Alan N. Resnick, Bankruptcy Law Manual § 8:34 (5th ed. 2005) (" 'Value' may consist of property or the satisfaction or securing of either a present or an antecedent debt. Thus 3 B.R. 963, 967 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1983) (<HOLDING>); Anand v. Nat’l Republic Bank of Chicago (In
holding that a preexisting or antecedent debt may constitute sufficient consideration to support a mortgage holding that plaintiffs forbearance from suit against subsidiary was sufficient consideration to support defendants guaranty of defendants subsidiarys preexisting debt recognizing debt cancellation as consideration holding that satisfaction of preexisting debt of corporate affiliate was sufficient to support jury finding of fair consideration for the transfer of valid security interest holding that the repayment of an antecedent debt constitutes fair consideration