524-25, 48 S.Ct. 404. The Court stated, “[s]o long as ‘[t]he succession and transfer were actual, not feigned or merely colorable ... courts will not inquire into the motives when deciding jurisdiction.’ ” Id. at 524, 48 S.Ct. 404; cf. Miller & Lux v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Co., 211 U.S. 293, 29 S.Ct. 111, 53 L.Ed. 189 (1908) (finding that the transfer of interests was feigned because the newly-created, diverse corporation had no real interests in the matter, and the transferring corporation did not dissolve or cease to exist after creating the diverse corporation). In evaluating the nature and validity of absolute transfers, the Supreme Court has also examined the consideration exchanged for the assigned claim. See Cross v. Allen, 141 U.S. 528, 12 S.Ct. 67, 35 L.Ed. 843 (1891) (<HOLDING>); Lehigh Mining and Manufacturing Co. v. Kelly,
holding that under mississippi law a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice unless there is actual notice or circumstances which would put a purchaser on inquiry notice holding that a bona fide purchaser may be considered in privity with its predecessor holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed holding that it is not a collusive transaction when valuable consideration is paid to transfer a debt to a bona fide purchaser even if the transfer was for the purpose of invoking diversity jurisdiction holding transfer of capital accounts from a limited partnership to a llc was valuable consideration for purposes of imposing state real estate transfer fee because the members received new rights and privileges