11 U.S.C. § 547(B)

57 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• In re Chase & Sanborn Corp. v. Arab Banking Corp.
  904 F.2d 588· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that loan payments were a contemporaneous exchange for new value, making them voidable preferences, and that ABC was the initial transferee of those payments.
• In re McVEY Trucking, Inc. v. Sec'y OF State OF Ill.
  812 F.2d 311· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 32×
  Congress, in exercising its plenary power to enact bankruptcy legislation under Article I, may create a cause of action for money damages enforceable against a state in federal court.
• In re Burton Lewis Arnett and Charlotte Arnett v. Sec. Mut. Fin. Corp.
  731 F.2d 358· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-10 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower courts' decisions, finding the credit transaction to be a 'contemporaneous exchange' under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1).
• In re Energy Coop., Inc.
  814 F.2d 1226· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that ECI's suit for voidable preferences was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same transaction as a prior settled claim and was dismissed with prejudice.
• In re N & D Props., Inc. v. N & D Props., Inc.
  799 F.2d 726· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-19 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a minority shareholder who became an insider and fiduciary must prove the fairness of her transactions with the debtor, and her claim should be equitably subordinated due to self-serving conduct. However, her loans will not be treated as capital contributions,
• In re AIR Conditioning v. Leasing Serv. Corp.
  845 F.2d 293· 11th Cir.· 1988-05-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the transfer of a certificate of deposit by a debtor to secure a letter of credit for a creditor constitutes a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), and the trustee can recover the property from the creditor.
• Brown v. First Nat'l Bank OF Little Rock
  748 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 24×
  Payments made by individual co-makers of a promissory note using their personal funds to satisfy the debtor's obligation are not avoidable preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) because they do not deplete the debtor's estate.
• In re Xonics Photochemical, Inc.
  841 F.2d 198· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that contingent liabilities must be discounted by their probability of occurrence when determining insolvency, and that Mitsui could not invoke fraudulent conveyance provisions on behalf of the debtor.
• In re White River Corp. v. RJL Leasing
  799 F.2d 631· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 20×
  A transfer by check occurs on the date of delivery, not when honored by the bank, for purposes of the 45-day exception to preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code.
• In re Bullion Reserve OF N. Am. v. Bozek
  836 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-11 ·cited 19×
  The court held that bullion transferred by a debtor to a customer shortly before bankruptcy, even if purchased with funds obtained fraudulently from customers, constitutes property of the debtor's estate for the purpose of a preferential transfer claim, and the transfer is not ex
• In re Craig OIL Co. v. Flatau
  785 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-08 ·cited 19×
  Payments made by a debtor using cashier's checks, many of which were late and made after the debtor ceased operations or faced bankruptcy, were not made in the ordinary course of business or according to ordinary business terms, and thus were avoidable preferences.
• In re Missionary Baptist Found. OF Am. v. Huffman
  818 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court failed to provide sufficient findings to justify the equitable subordination of Huffman's claim, even after remand.
• In re George Rodman, Inc. v. Fort Worth Pipe Co.
  792 F.2d 125· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) does not require a valuation of the property transferred to determine if it constitutes 'new value'.
• In re Iowa Premium Serv. Co., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank in ST. Louis
  695 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting opinion holds that interest payments made more than 45 days after a promissory note's execution are avoidable preferences because the debt was incurred on the date the note was signed.
• John E. Burns Drilling Co. v. Cent. Bank OF Denver
  739 F.2d 1489· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss and denied a petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition, finding the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction.
• In re Bellanca Aircraft Corp. v. Anderson-Greenwood Aviation Corp.
  850 F.2d 1275· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that payments to third parties for the benefit of the debtor can constitute 'new value' under § 547(c)(4) and that post-petition advances cannot offset pre-petition preferences. However, it remanded for further findings on whether resale proceeds were property of t
• E.I. DU Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Cullen
  791 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the creditor's state court action was an action to appoint a receiver, not a statutory 'action to reach and apply' or a non-statutory 'creditor's bill,' and therefore did not create a lien that predated the bankruptcy preference period.
• In re NEW York City Shoes, Inc. v. Bentley Int'l, Inc.
  880 F.2d 679· 3d Cir.· 1989-07-12 ·cited 12×
  A postdated check is presumed not transferred on its delivery date for section 547(c)(4) purposes, and this presumption can only be rebutted if the parties demonstrably treated the transaction as a cash one.
• Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Midwest Corp.
  873 F.2d 805· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that for purposes of the ordinary course of business exception to preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2), payment by check is considered transferred upon delivery, not when honored by the bank.
• In re Fulghum Constr. Corp. v. Ranier
  706 F.2d 171· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the judicially created 'net result rule' cannot be applied as a gloss to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(5) to determine preferential transfers, as it conflicts with congressional intent and renders the statutory defense in § 547(c)(4) impotent.
• In re Emerald OIL Co. v. Fred Wilson Drilling Co.
  695 F.2d 833· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 12×
  A debt is 'incurred' for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary course of business exception when the debtor becomes obligated to pay, not when the creditor invoices the debtor. A creditor's speculative testimony regarding accounting methods is insufficient to rebut the statu
• In re Alan J. and Mary Frances Antweil v. Barnhill
  931 F.2d 689· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-30 ·cited 10×
  For purposes of establishing a voidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), a payment made by check is deemed to have occurred when the check is honored by the drawee bank, not when it is delivered to the payee.
• In re Bohlen Enters., Ltd. v. The Nat'l Bank OF Waterloo
  859 F.2d 561· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the earmarked funds doctrine applies, preventing the transfer from being a voidable preference because the funds were not the debtor's property and did not diminish the debtor's estate.
• Deel Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Levine
  721 F.2d 750· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 10×
  A debtor can avoid a preferential transfer under section 522(h) even if the property would not be exempt from the creditor's claim under state law, and the 'diminution of estate' doctrine does not apply to such debtor actions.
• Clay v. Traders Bank OF Kan. City
  708 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the debtors were insolvent when the deed of trust was executed, making it a voidable preference, but remanded for determination of whether a $125,000.00 debt was an antecedent corporate debt.
• First Federal OF Michigan v. Barrow
  878 F.2d 912· 6th Cir.· 1989-06-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether payments were made in the ordinary course of business and whether tax payments were current or past due.
• In re Lackow Bros., Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Co.
  752 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the 'ongoing concern' value of collateral was the appropriate standard for determining whether payments constituted preferential transfers, and that the creditor's position had not improved.
• In re Fuel OIL Supply & Terminaling, Inc. v. Fuel OIL Supply & Terminaling, Inc.
  837 F.2d 224· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that transfers made by a debtor to a creditor, in exchange for the release of collateral securing letters of credit issued by a third-party bank, satisfy the "new value" requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1), even if the new value comes from the bank and not directl
• In re Spada v. Spada
  903 F.2d 971· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-22 ·cited 6×
  A transfer is only a preference to the extent the value received by the creditor exceeds the new value given to the debtor, and the bankruptcy court must calculate this specific amount.
• In re Clark Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Assocs. Commercial Corp.
  893 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1990-01-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in valuing inventory from the debtor's perspective and that the lender's actions, while severe, did not constitute inequitable conduct justifying equitable subordination.
• In re R & T Roofing Structures & Commercial Framing, Inc. v. Daniel-Appellee
  887 F.2d 981· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether seized funds were held in trust, and thus summary judgment for the trustee was proper.
• In re Robinson Bros. Drilling, Inc. v. U.P.G., Inc.
  877 F.2d 32· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 6×
  A creditor seeking the protection of the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense under § 547(c)(1) must prove the specific measure of new value given to the debtor, not just the parties' intent.
• In re Willington Convalescent Home, Inc. v. State OF Conn.
  850 F.2d 50· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-15 ·cited 6×
  Section 106(c) of the Bankruptcy Code does not waive a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suits seeking monetary recovery for turnover proceedings or avoided preferential transfers.
• In re James Ross Hartley & Sharon Lee Hartley v. Peoples Banking Co.
  825 F.2d 1067· 6th Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 6×
  A payment by a third party to a creditor on behalf of a debtor is a voidable preferential transfer only to the extent the debtor's estate was diminished by the transaction, typically by the value of any security interests granted.
• Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Wendel (In Re Air Conditioning
  72 B.R. 657· S.D. Fla.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 6×
  The Bankruptcy Court erred in nullifying the letter of credit; however, the finding of a preferential transfer to LSC is affirmed, and the trustee may recover from LSC.
• In re Barefoot v. Champion Credit Corp.
  952 F.2d 795· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-18 ·cited 4×
  Payments made to an unsecured creditor within ninety days of bankruptcy to make good a dishonored check are avoidable preferences, even if the check was delivered before the ninety-day period.
• In re Royal Golf Prods. Corp. v. Fid. Bank OF Mich.
  908 F.2d 91· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that payments made by a third party to a creditor on behalf of a debtor can be a voidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) to the extent the transaction depleted the debtor's estate, and the valuation for the preferential effect is determined as of the bankruptc
• In re Smith-Douglass, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.
  842 F.2d 729· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 4×
  Interest payments made on a promissory note within 90 days of bankruptcy are not avoidable preferential transfers if they fall within the ordinary course of business exception, as the debt for interest is incurred when it accrues, not when the note is signed.
• In re Conard Corp. & Virgil Conard v. Burton
  806 F.2d 610· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that payments made by a third party assuming a debtor's obligation to a creditor, within 90 days of bankruptcy, constitute a preferential transfer recoverable by the trustee.
• Gray v. Giant Wholesale Corp.
  758 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1985-04-04 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the creditor had a perfected security interest, did not receive voidable preferential transfers, and was not subject to bulk transfer provisions, and that the sale of repossessed collateral was commercially reasonable
• Gennet v. Fason
  178 B.R. 888· S.D. Fla.· 1995-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the four-month period under U.C.C. § 9-103(l)(d) for re-perfecting a security interest in collateral moved to a new state applies to each item of collateral individually as it is removed, not from the first instance of removal.
• In re Perma Pac. Props. v. Eustace H. Winn, Jr.
  983 F.2d 964· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transfer of a security interest by the debtor to Winn was a voidable preference because it was made for an antecedent debt of the debtor, depleting the estate for other creditors.
• In re Virginia-Carolina Fin. Corp. v. Creative Fin. Mgmt.
  954 F.2d 193· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a payment made by debtors to a creditor was a voidable preference because it was on account of an antecedent debt and the creditor received more than they would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation, regardless of collateral held from a third party.
• In re Willaert v. LE Sueur State Bank
  944 F.2d 463· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in failing to recognize that a preferential mortgage transfer and the subsequent transfer of sale proceeds are a single transaction, and that the trustee can recover the value of the preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a).
• In re Kumar Bavishi & Assocs. (Two Cases) Frederick L. Reigle v. S.S. Mahajan
  906 F.2d 942· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge held that the Appellees failed to establish a defense under sections 547(c)(1) and 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code because their guarantee did not constitute 'new value' to the debtor. The judge also found that the district court erred in dismissing the stat
• In re Warne Ehring v. Western Community Moneycenter
  900 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 2×
  A nonjudicial foreclosure sale by a secured creditor within 90 days of bankruptcy filing is a transfer, but it does not constitute an avoidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) if the creditor does not receive more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation.
• In re J.P. Fyfe v. Bradco Supply Corp.
  891 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 2×
  A payment made under a new workout arrangement, which included the use of preliminary lien notices and a departure from open account terms due to the debtor's financial distress, does not qualify as a payment made in the ordinary course of business under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) and
• Porter v. Yukon Nat'l Bank
  866 F.2d 355· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pre-bankruptcy transfer of collateral to a creditor constituted a voidable preference because it enabled the creditor to receive more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation, and the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer.
• In re O'Neill's Shannon Vill. v. Dorothy
  750 F.2d 679· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 2×
  A valid security interest can be created in a South Dakota liquor license under the Uniform Commercial Code, and such an interest is enforceable against a bankruptcy trustee.
• Winick v. Daddy's Money of Clearwater
  187 B.R. 750· M.D. Fla.· 1995-10-02
  The court held that the attorney's control over the debtor's funds and the lack of an arm's length transaction supported finding him an insider, and that he was not a secured creditor due to the fee agreement belonging to his former firm.