Avoidance Of Preferential Transfer

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

• 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.
• In re Standard Food Servs., Inc. v. Cudahy Foods Co.
  723 F.2d 820· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a payment made by a cashier's check after the debtor's initial check was dishonored, while the debtor was insolvent, did not qualify as a substantially contemporaneous exchange for new value under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1).
• Edwards & Deutsch Lithographing Co. v. Bankruptcy
  398 F.2d 1020· 10th Cir.· 1968-08-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the creditor had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent when preferential payments were made, based on the totality of circumstances.
• In re Smith
  966 F.2d 1527· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the debtor did not have a property interest in the funds transferred to Baker & Schultz, as the bank retained dispositive control and the funds were not depleted from the debtor's estate.
• In re Still v. Wright
  963 F.2d 75· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The FDIC-as-Receiver cannot use the defense provided by § 550(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to avoid a preferential transfer because it did not take the assets for value.
• In Matter of Nelson Co. v. Counsel FOR the Official Comm. OF Unsecured Creditors
  959 F.2d 1260· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 90-day preference period under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) is calculated by counting backward from the petition filing date, and that the consent order was ambiguous but properly interpreted as modifying rather than striking the confessed judgment.
• 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 Chattanooga Wholesale Antiques, Inc. v. Rossville Bank
  930 F.2d 458· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that post-confirmation payments made under a confirmed Chapter 11 plan are not recoverable by a Chapter 7 trustee, but pre-petition payments and a specific post-petition, pre-confirmation payment are recoverable as preferential or unauthorized transfers.
• In re ZZZZ Best Co., Inc. v. Union Bank
  921 F.2d 968· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 2×
  Interest payments on a revolving credit line, even if less than a year, are not protected from recovery as preferential transfers under the ordinary course of business exception.
• 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 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
• In re J.D. Allen v. Mich. Nat'l Bank
  888 F.2d 1299· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the debtor's interest in the Purchase and Escrow Agreement was a 'general intangible' and that the transfer to Michigan National Bank was a contemporaneous exchange for new value, thus not an avoidable preferential transfer.
• In re Seawinds Ltd. v. Seawinds Ltd.
  888 F.2d 640· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that preferential transfers made after a creditor took steps to terminate contracts and exert economic pressure were not within the ordinary course of business exception.
• Vogel v. Russell Transfer, Inc.
  852 F.2d 797· 4th Cir.· 1988-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trustee may not avoid the debtor's transfers of security interests under Section 547 or Section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code.
• In re Tressler v. Baker
  771 F.2d 791· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bank failed to meet its burden of proving timely perfection of its lien under the Bankruptcy Act, regardless of the interpretation of state law.
• Seidle v. Gatx Leasing Corp.
  45 B.R. 327· S.D. Fla.· 1984-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that payments made by a debtor to an aircraft financer within ninety days of bankruptcy filing were not avoidable preferences because they were authorized by a post-petition stipulation under 11 U.S.C. § 1110 and the debtor was estopped from challenging them.
• In re Caro Prods., Inc. v. H. Hirschfield & Sons, Inc.
  746 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), applies to transfers made during the 'gap period' (after enactment but before the effective date) if the bankruptcy petition was filed after the effective date. Such application does not raise
• Edward J. Heller in Bankruptcy of H.D. Montgomery, Jr. v. Montgomery
  699 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-03 ·cited 2×
  This court lacks jurisdiction to directly review a bankruptcy judge's decision under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898; appeals must first go to the district court.
• Rooke v. Reliable Home Equip. Co., Inc.
  195 F.2d 667· 4th Cir.· 1952-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The appeal is dismissed because general creditors lack standing to appeal a bankruptcy court's decision without the trustee's consent or court authorization.
• In re Nucorp Energy, Inc. v. Fredman
  902 F.2d 729· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that payments made to a creditor within 90 days of bankruptcy were avoidable preferences because the creditor did not provide 'new value' by releasing a valueless lien, and the creditor's statutory lien was unperfected and thus avoidable.
• Dent v. Martin
  86 B.R. 290· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the determination of insider status and debtor insolvency for preferential transfer avoidance must be made as of the date the transfer was perfected, not when it was arranged.
• Bankruptcy v. Merchs. Wholesale Grocery Co.
  269 F.2d 838· 6th Cir.· 1959-06-22 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition for review, finding the referee's findings supported by substantial evidence.
• Salkin Slott v. Anan Enter., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-06-23
  The court held that a motion to withdraw an adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court based solely on a potential jury trial right is premature if the case is not yet ready for trial.
• Aerovias De Mexico v. v. Feltman (In Re Empresa De Transportes Aero Del Peru
  263 B.R. 367· S.D. Fla.· 2001-06-26
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was an interlocutory decree and granted leave to appeal, finding substantial grounds for difference of opinion regarding subject-matter jurisdiction due to the unclear status of the foreign representative.
• In re Castletons, Inc. v. Zions First Nat'l Bank
  990 F.2d 551· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-02
  Pre-bankruptcy payments to a creditor arising from floating liens on all debtor's assets do not constitute preferential transfers if the creditor remains undersecured. A claim for late check return is barred by a one-year statute of limitations if the liability is deemed a penalt
• In re Rexplore Drilling, Inc. v. Petro Supply Co., Inc.
  971 F.2d 1219· 6th Cir.· 1992-08-05
  The dissenting judge believes the court should have addressed the preemption issue or remanded it for consideration, and that the garnishment was not a preferential transfer under state law.
• In re Comark v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for GreatAmerican Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc.
  971 F.2d 322· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-28
  The court held that the return of additional margin securities in a cancelled securities transaction constitutes a 'settlement payment' under 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), and is therefore not avoidable as a preferential transfer.
• Cameron v. Pfaff Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
  966 F.2d 414· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-09
  An assignment of future funds, where the debtor has an obligation to pay the funds and the creditor has an obligation to credit the debt upon receipt, is an executory contract that is deemed rejected by the trustee if not assumed within 60 days of filing a Chapter 7 petition.
• Christison v. United States
  960 F.2d 613· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-26
  The court held that the debtor's right to receive future payments from Bergner's under the lease was not 'money' as defined by Internal Revenue Code Section 6323(h)(4), and therefore the IRS tax lien was valid against this right.
• Wider v. Wootton
  907 F.2d 570· 5th Cir.· 1990-08-07
  A debtor operating a Ponzi scheme, even if engaging in securities transactions, does not qualify as a 'stockbroker' under the Bankruptcy Code because they lack 'customers' as statutorily defined, thus the 'stockbroker defense' to avoidance of preferential transfers is unavailable
• Lewis v. Thomas J. and Linda M. Diethorn
  893 F.2d 648· 3d Cir.· 1990-01-12
  The court held that the payment made by the debtor to the defendants was not an avoidable preferential transfer because it was a contemporaneous exchange for new value and also satisfied an equitable lien under state law.
• In re Holder v. Bringle
  892 F.2d 29· 4th Cir.· 1989-12-15
  The court held that 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) does not apply to purchase money security interests perfected more than 10 days after the debtor receives possession of the collateral. Therefore, the trustee may avoid the lien.
• In re Cohen v. V.W. Barge, III
  875 F.2d 508· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-19
  Payments to an investor in a Ponzi scheme that represent fictitious profits are not preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), but payments up to the amount of the investor's principal investment can be.
• Dent v. Martin
  104 B.R. 477· S.D. Fla.· 1989-04-26
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's findings that the debtor was insolvent and that Janice Dent was an insider at the time of the preferential transfer, thus upholding the avoidance of the transfer.
• Roemelmeyer v. D.M.B. Corp. (In re Berman)
  1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 812· S.D. Fla.· 1989-01-25
  The court held that a security interest granted after a loan is made does not qualify for the enabling loan exception under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(3)(A)(i) because the new value must be given at or after the signing of the security agreement.