Preferential Transfer

306 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Hygrade Envelope Corp. v. Gibraltar Factors Corp.
  393 F.2d 60· 2d Cir.· 1968-04-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trustee is entitled to recover the value of a preferentially transferred insurance policy, reduced by amounts attributable to new advances made in good faith, but not by advances secured by other collateral.
• Irving I. Bass in Bankr. of Lease Fin. Corp. v. John P. Stodd in Bankruptcy of Patrick John Gleason
  357 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the levy of a writ of attachment, under California law, constitutes a transfer under the Bankruptcy Act, and if perfected more than four months before bankruptcy while the debtor was solvent, it is immune from attack by the trustee as a preference.
• In re Berman & Co., Inc. v. Marlow
  343 F.2d 125· 6th Cir.· 1965-03-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the assignment of insurance proceeds by an insolvent corporation to a creditor was a voidable preference under Ohio law and the Bankruptcy Act.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Chicago v. Bone
  333 F.2d 984· 8th Cir.· 1964-07-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trustee failed to establish that the trust deed constituted a voidable preference because there was insufficient evidence of the bankrupt's insolvency at the time of the transfer and the bank's reasonable cause to believe in such insolvency.
• McKEE v. Hood
  312 F.2d 394· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a bank's right of set-off under Section 68 of the Bankruptcy Act can be exercised by accepting the debtor's checks in payment of an antecedent debt, and such action does not constitute a voidable preference.
• Saper v. Hewitt S. West, Jr.
  263 F.2d 422· 2d Cir.· 1959-02-04 ·cited 10×
  The trustee in bankruptcy cannot recover funds distributed by a state court judgment, as the transfer occurred when the funds were deposited with the court clerk, and the bankrupt was not insolvent at that time.
• Major Appliance Co., Inc. v. Hupp Corp.
  254 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the corporation assumed the liabilities of the proprietorship based on the bill of sale construed in light of surrounding circumstances and the parties' subsequent conduct.
• United States v. Gotwals
  156 F.2d 692· 10th Cir.· 1946-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The United States is entitled to priority payment of its claim from funds assigned by an insolvent debtor to a third party, even if the assignment was not a formal voluntary assignment for creditors, if it constituted an act of bankruptcy by preferring one creditor.
• In re C.H. Butcher, Jr. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Louisville
  829 F.2d 596· 6th Cir.· 1987-09-23 ·cited 9×
  A bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to hear a preferential or fraudulent transfer action if the complaint is not filed within the two-year statute of limitations provided by 11 U.S.C. § 546(a), and Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a) does not extend this period.
• Murray Drabkin v. A.I. Credit Corp.
  800 F.2d 1153· D.C. Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 9×
  Payments made by a debtor to an undersecured creditor in the ninety days before bankruptcy are voidable preferences if they reduce the unsecured portion of the debt, and forbearance alone does not constitute 'new value' under the Bankruptcy Code.
• In re Comm. OF Unsecured Creditors OF F S Commc'ns Corp. v. Hyatt Greenville Corp.
  760 F.2d 1194· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Northern Pipeline invalidated only subsection (c) of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1471, leaving district courts with constitutional bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction, and that the emergency local rule was a constitutional delegation of authority.
• In the Matter of: Lowery Bros., Inc. v. Davis Water & Waste Indus., Inc.
  589 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-15 ·cited 9×
  Florida Statutes section 713.15 creates a statutory lien valid against a trustee in bankruptcy, as it grants a supplier a superior right to repossess unpaid materials under specified conditions.
• Moffatt & Nichol, Inc. v. B.E.A. Int'l Corp., Inc.
  48 So. 3d 896· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-10-20 ·cited 8×
  Moffatt & Nichol, a judgment creditor, appealed the denial of its motion for proceedings supplementary against B.E.A. International Corporation after BEAI made a statutory assignment for the benefit of creditors. The court held that under Florida's 2007 amendments to Chapter 727,
• In re Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Carl D. Rafoth for Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc.
  974 F.2d 712· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Cordek was a principal maker of the note, not an accommodation maker, and affirmed that the Bank's claim should not be equitably subordinated. The court also affirmed the recovery of preferential transfers, holding that the preference period is calculated from
• Anton K.M. Dababneh v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  971 F.2d 428· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The FDIC-C cannot be held directly liable for the FDIC-R's actions, and claims for future rent against a bank receiver are unprovable under federal law.
• In re Yurika Foods Corp. v. United Parcel Serv.
  888 F.2d 42· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that late payments to a common carrier, even if technically outside strict ICC credit regulations, can still be considered within the ordinary course of business exception under Bankruptcy Code section 547(c)(2) if consistent with the parties' prior dealings and in
• 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.
• Allied Indus. Int'l, Inc. v. Agfa-Gevaert, Inc.
  688 F. Supp. 1516· S.D. Fla.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a successor corporation and individuals who received assets from a judgment debtor could be held liable for the judgment debt under Florida's supplementary proceedings statute, based on alter ego, fraudulent transfer, and breach of fiduciary duty theories.
• In re Harbour v. Perkinson
  840 F.2d 1165· 4th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge held that the Perkinsons are entitled to a trial by jury because the trustee's claims, both under federal law for preferences and fraudulent transfers and under state law for voluntary conveyances, are historically legal actions seeking money judgments.
• Charisma Inv. Co. N v. v. Air Fla. Sys., Inc.
  68 B.R. 596· S.D. Fla.· 1986-12-15 ·cited 8×
  A creditor's mere forbearance from exercising its right to evict a debtor from leased premises, without actual use or benefit derived by the debtor's estate, does not constitute 'new value' under Section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
• In re Brass Kettle Rest., Inc. v. ASH
  790 F.2d 574· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the retainer agreement created a valid equitable lien, meaning the payments received by the law firm were not preferential transfers.
• Smith v. Mixon
  788 F.2d 229· 4th Cir.· 1986-04-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the term 'knowledge' in 11 U.S.C. § 550(b)(1) refers to actual notice, not constructive notice, and therefore the trustee could not recover property from a good faith subsequent transferee who lacked actual knowledge of the transfer's voidability.
• In re Gulino v. Gulino
  779 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the transferees' possession of the real property perfected the transfer at the time of the sale, making it effective outside the 90-day preference period, even though the deed was recorded later.
• 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.
• Shamrock Golf Co. v. Richcraft, Inc.
  680 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that payment by check is considered made upon delivery for purposes of the four-month preference period, provided the check is not dishonored.
• In re Multiponics v. Multiponics
  622 F.2d 725· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a bank's setoff of funds held in a special account, established to secure a letter of credit, was improper because the account lacked mutuality of obligation required for setoff under the Bankruptcy Act.
• The K. King & The G. Shuler Corp. v. Petitioning Creditors
  427 F.2d 689· 9th Cir.· 1970-06-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a transfer of property substantially in excess of the value of the creditor's security interest constitutes a preference and an act of bankruptcy.
• Blank v. YOO HOO OF Fla. Corp.
  213 So. 2d 464· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-08-20 ·cited 8×
  A simple denial of intent to create a preference does not create a triable issue of fact when the undisputed evidence shows a preference was accomplished.
• Mansell v. V. H. Carroll in Bankruptcy of Bobby Howard Jones
  379 F.2d 682· 10th Cir.· 1967-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that transactions intended to defraud creditors, even if involving homestead property, can be set aside as fraudulent and preferential under the Bankruptcy Act.
• Erwin E. Hassen v. Jonas
  373 F.2d 880· 9th Cir.· 1967-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a party who wrongfully takes money from a bankrupt and is ordered to repay it cannot then file a claim for that amount in bankruptcy proceedings.
• Alberts v. Schneiderman
  182 So. 2d 50· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-01-18 ·cited 8×
  This case reviews a summary judgment against corporate officers and directors for violating a statute prohibiting transfers of corporate property to officers or directors for less than full value when the corporation has refused to pay its debts. The court affirmed the judgment,
• Cal. Airmotive Corp. v. Bass
  354 F.2d 453· 9th Cir.· 1965-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the transfer of aircraft was a voidable preference and that the Referee did not abuse his discretion in refusing to reopen the hearing.
• H. D. LEE Co., Inc. v. Bostian
  187 F.2d 942· 8th Cir.· 1951-03-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the payments made to creditors within four months of bankruptcy were preferential transfers, even though one bankrupt could not obtain a discharge.
• In re LE Maire Cosm. Co. v. Kennedy
  174 F.2d 749· 7th Cir.· 1949-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the chattel mortgage and payments made by an individual were not voidable preferences of the debtor corporation because the corporation did not own the property or make the payments, and the transfer was void under the Bulk Sales Act.
• Davis v. Woolf
  147 F.2d 629· 4th Cir.· 1945-02-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the validity of a deed of trust given by an allegedly insolvent corporation to a director for indemnity cannot be determined on the current record and must be remanded for further factual findings.
• Rockmore v. Lehman
  129 F.2d 892· 2d Cir.· 1942-08-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that assignments of existing contracts, even those with future payments, are perfected at the time of assignment and are not subject to the preference provisions of the Bankruptcy Act or filing requirements of the New York Lien Law.
• In re Quaker City Sheet Metal Co. Appeal of Klauder
  129 F.2d 894· 3d Cir.· 1942-08-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that transfers made for contemporaneous value, even if unperfected, are not preferential under Section 60(a) of the Bankruptcy Act.
• Mortgageamerica Corp. v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc.
  789 F.2d 1146· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying Bankruptcy Rule 8010 retroactively and dismissing issues not properly briefed, nor did it err in refusing to consider the voidable transfer issue raised for the first time on appeal.
• Stein v. Miller
  158 B.R. 876· S.D. Fla.· 1993-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that defendants in bankruptcy adversary proceedings for preferential and fraudulent transfers are entitled to a jury trial before an Article III court, but dispositive motions can be heard by the bankruptcy court.
• In re Excello Press
  967 F.2d 1109· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that imposing sanctions under Rule 9011 for an attorney's failure to investigate an affirmative defense, when there was a split in authority on the issue and relevant information was not readily available, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• 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 Republic Tr. & Sav. Co. v. P.A. Hackler
  897 F.2d 1041· 10th Cir.· 1990-03-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the debtors' redemption of savings certificates for payments did not constitute a contemporaneous exchange for new value under § 547(c)(1), and that the pre-amendment version of § 547(c)(2) applied, barring the 45-day exemption. However, the court reversed, fi
• 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 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 Salem Mortg. Co. v. Owsianowski
  791 F.2d 456· 6th Cir.· 1986-05-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of showing justification for their oversight in signing a stipulation.
• In re Harold C. Abramson. Harold C. Abramson in Bankr. of Galaxy Indus., Inc. v. ST. Regis Paper Co.
  715 F.2d 934· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the transfer of Galaxy's option and support equipment to Southland constituted an avoidable preference under § 60 of the Bankruptcy Act, as it resulted in a diminution of the bankrupt estate and Southland had reasonable cause to believe Galaxy was insolvent.
• Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Mo. Beef Packers, Inc.
  358 So. 2d 103· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-05-02 ·cited 6×
  Ryder Truck Rental appealed a judgment upholding property transfers made by Moore Meats to Missouri Beef Packers, challenging them as preferential transfers in violation of Florida's fraudulent conveyance statute. The court affirmed, finding no violation because Moore acted in go