Preferential Transfer

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

• Robert O. Lippi for Pac. Indus. Distribs., Inc. v. City Bank
  955 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the standing test on a defendant-by-defendant basis and that the trustee had standing to challenge transfers violating H.R.S. § 416-28. However, the court affirmed the district court's refusal to enter a judgment declaring
• In re Hooker Invs., Inc. v. Hooker Invs., Inc.
  937 F.2d 833· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 3×
  The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, treating it as a petition for writ of mandamus, and denied the relief sought.
• Diamond Int'l Corp. v. SJH Enters., Inc.
  487 So. 2d 1089· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-03-20 ·cited 3×
  Diamond International sought to hold Stephen J. Hacker personally liable for assets of his insolvent corporation, SJH Enterprises, after obtaining a judgment against the corporation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that Hacker's transfer of valua
• Tomlin v. Anderson
  413 So. 2d 79· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-03-31 ·cited 3×
  In this garnishment case, the court reversed the trial court's judgment holding that a stockholder (Tomlin) owed a debt to his corporation (Quail Hollow Investments) based on book entries made in 1971-1972 that were later cancelled in 1974. The court held that the debt was unenfo
• In re KDI Corp. v. KDI Corp.
  477 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1973-04-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the referee erred in denying confirmation based on an erroneous understanding of the burden of proof under § 14(c) and that the debtor was entitled to confirmation.
• In re S. Fruit & Produce Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 1926-09-16 ·cited 3×
  District court granted creditors' motion to adjudicate Southern Fruit & Produce Co. as bankrupt where the company's answer failed to specifically deny material allegations of fraudulent transfer and preferential payment under bankruptcy rules.
• 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 Est. OF Harold Vernon v. Cap. Bank
  637 So. 2d 365· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The administrator of an insolvent estate appeals the dismissal of a petition seeking recovery of $194,098.50 paid to a bank creditor, claiming the payment was improper under Florida law. The court reverses, holding that the four-year limitations period does not bar recovery when
• Travellers Int'l AG. v. Robinson
  982 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1992-12-28 ·cited 2×
  A creditor who files a proof of claim against a bankruptcy estate, even if contingent, waives its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in an adversary proceeding concerning that claim.
• Pine TOP Ins. Co. v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  969 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transfer of collateral to the Bank was a substantially contemporaneous exchange for new value, and therefore not a voidable preference.
• 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 Kroh Bros. Dev. Co. v. Cont'l Constr. Eng'rs, Inc.
  930 F.2d 648· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4), a transfer by check occurs upon delivery, not payment. It also held that a creditor cannot assert the new value defense if they have been paid by the debtor for the new value provided.
• 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.
• Bustop Shelters OF Louisville, Inc. v. Classic Homes, Inc.
  914 F.2d 810· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 2×
  A bankruptcy court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow a debtor to place a creditor in a separate class solely to obtain confirmation of a reorganization plan, and a creditor's claim is not impaired if the debtor's obligation remains unaltered.
• In re Kerr v. Kerr
  908 F.2d 400· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the debtors' Chapter 11 petitions for bad faith and failure to propose a workable reorganization plan, and that a hearing on the value of land sold to a secured creditor should have been held.
• 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
• 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 Advance Glove Mfg. Co. v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  761 F.2d 249· 6th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the debt for insurance premiums was incurred on the first day of each month, as stipulated by the insurance policy, making the payments non-preferential under the 45-day exception.
• 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.
• 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.
• Mission BAY Campland, Inc. v. Sumner Fin. Corp.
  731 F.2d 768· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the foreclosure and transfer of MBC's assets were fraudulent conveyances and that SFC could recover attorney's fees from the fraudulently transferred fund.
• Lawson F. Bernstein in Bankr. of Frigitemp Corp. v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  730 F.2d 987· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trustee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the creditor (Bell) had reasonable cause to believe the debtor (Frigitemp) was insolvent at the time of the alleged preferential transfer.
• In re David Wayne Coppie & Betty Ann Coppie
  728 F.2d 951· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-01 ·cited 2×
  Garnishment of wages within ninety days of bankruptcy, pursuant to an order issued more than ninety days prior, does not constitute a preferential transfer under Indiana law.
• In re del Norte Depot, Inc. v. Diamant
  716 F.2d 557· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that California UCC transition provisions saved the Bank's 1972 and 1975 security interests despite failure to list trade names, and that post-bankruptcy payments were voidable preferences.
• 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.
• In re Iowa Premium Serv. Co., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of ST. Louis
  676 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would hold that interest payments were made within 45 days of the debt being incurred, as the debt for interest is incurred when it accrues, not when the note is executed.
• Reese v. Akai Am. Ltd.
  19 B.R. 83· S.D. Fla.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that payments made by Kennedy and Cohen to vendors within four months of bankruptcy constituted voidable preferences because the vendors had reasonable cause to believe the company was insolvent.
• United States v. Whitney
  654 F.2d 607· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 2×
  A person exercising control over an insolvent debtor's assets and paying other creditors before satisfying the United States' tax debt can be held personally liable under 31 U.S.C. § 192.
• Zestee Foods, Inc. v. Phillips Foods Corp.
  536 F.2d 334· 10th Cir.· 1976-05-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a garnishment summons served after a bankruptcy petition was filed does not constitute a preferential transfer because the property inured to the Trustee upon filing.
• In re Jercyn Dress Shop v. Leslie FAY Sales
  516 F.2d 864· 2d Cir.· 1975-05-20 ·cited 2×
  A general assignment of partnership assets for the benefit of creditors is not ipso facto an act of bankruptcy by the individual partners.
• In re Columbus Malleable, Inc.
  459 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transaction constituted a preferential transfer because it depleted the debtor's assets available to general creditors, even though the exact amount of a prior secured obligation was not proven.
• In re George W. Myers Co., Inc.
  448 F.2d 1260· 3d Cir.· 1971-10-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not clearly err in affirming the referee's finding of bankruptcy, as the referee's credibility determination regarding the company's accountant was supported by the record.
• Merit Clothing Co. v. Lees
  218 So. 2d 779· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-02-12 ·cited 2×
  Shoe and clothing companies appeal a summary judgment in favor of defendants in a dispute over priority of claims to assets of a clothing store. The court held that a bulk sale of inventory in satisfaction of an unrecorded chattel mortgage violates Florida's Bulk Sales Act and th
• Taylor v. Twin City Transit Co.
  145 So. 2d 543· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-10-16 ·cited 2×
  Taylor appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action seeking to impose a constructive trust on monies held by Mershon as administrator of Whiteside's estate, alleging preferential transfers of Twin City Transit Company assets while it was insolvent. The court affirmed, findin
• Herbert B. Finn in Bankruptcy of the Estate of Richard M. Aldridge v. Gilbert
  307 F.2d 380· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that recording a homestead declaration is a condition precedent to establishing a valid homestead exemption under Arizona law, and that the evidence supported the referee's finding that the transferees had reasonable cause to believe the transferors were insolvent.
• Zlot v. SAN Jose Fashions, Inc.
  284 F.2d 469· 9th Cir.· 1960-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an involuntary petition based solely on preferential transfers may be dismissed if there are no creditors other than the transferees, but affirmed without prejudice to allow amendment.
• Harvey L. Velde in bankruptcy of Thomas P. Lawless v. Ezra Rumbold
  256 F.2d 163· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that where a trustee seeks to recover a voidable preference, the general rule requires surrender of the property, and alternative relief for its value is only available if conversion is alleged and proven.
• Lewis H. Safer in Bankr. of Riverside Iron & Steel Corp. v. Wood
  249 F.2d 401· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trustee failed to prove the elements of a preference, and the state court's judgment was conclusive regarding the distribution of funds.
• 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.
• Ruberoid Co. v. N. Tex. Concrete Co.
  193 F.2d 121· 5th Cir.· 1951-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the corporate veil could not be pierced and that the corporation's chattel mortgage to its officers was a valid preference under Texas law. The judgment was affirmed.
• In re Moscovitz
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-03-26 ·cited 2×
  District court granted motion to dismiss involuntary bankruptcy petition because creditors failed to adequately allege the nature of their claims and failed to properly charge acts of bankruptcy under section 3a(2) of the Bankruptcy Act.
• Leshin v. Welt (In Re Warmus)
  276 B.R. 688· S.D. Fla.· 2002-03-25 ·cited 1×
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court erred in applying collateral estoppel against an attorney who was not a party to a prior settlement and in admitting a deposition without proper foundation, reversing the final judgment against the attorney.
• 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.
• United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Sanctuary Surgical Ctr., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2014-03-06
  The court held that the plaintiffs' state law fraud-based claims are not preempted by ERISA because they do not fall within ERISA's exclusive remedial scheme and are not preempted by ERISA's express preemption provision.
• Sunshine Res., Inc. v. Simpson
  763 So. 2d 1078· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-10-13
  Sunshine Resources appealed a final order in a proceedings supplementary action, challenging the trial court's determinations regarding fraudulent transfers and execution against assets held by James Simpson, his wife Lorraine, and his mother Rinnie. The appellate court affirmed
• Yeager v. The Summit Grp. OF Cent. Fla., Inc.
  654 So. 2d 189· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-04-13
  Yeager, a commercial landlord, sued Bradshaw and his corporation Summit after Summit breached a lease and dissolved. The court held that Bradshaw, as an insider, received fraudulent transfers when Summit's checks were deposited into his account after the corporation became insolv
• In re WES DOR v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.
  996 F.2d 237· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-18
  The court held that the Bank, as a transferee of a fraudulent transfer, is liable for the amount of the transfer less any value it extended to the Debtor, which is limited to the direct benefit the Debtor received from loans extended to its parent.
• 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