Preferential Transfer

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

• Stoumbos v. Whitesides
  988 F.2d 949· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-09
  The court held that Kilimnik's security interest was limited to assets owned on May 1, 1982, except for after-acquired inventory securing working capital advances, and that his transfer of vehicles and withdrawal from the LAMA were improper.
• Atlas Mach. & Iron Works v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  986 F.2d 709· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-22
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions in both the contract and bankruptcy actions, finding no error in the rulings.
• In re Interior Wood Prods. Co. Sheridan J. Buckley v. Jeld-Wen, Inc.
  986 F.2d 228· 8th Cir.· 1993-02-17
  The court held that a payment made by a buyer of a debtor's assets to one of the debtor's creditors, even if funded by the buyer, can constitute a voidable preferential transfer if it was made from the debtor's property and on account of an antecedent debt.
• Henderson v. Buchanan
  985 F.2d 1021· 9th Cir.· 1993-02-11
  The court held that the Menicuccis breached their fiduciary duty to WWF by rendering it insolvent and that transfers to them were preferential, reversing the district court's contrary findings.
• In re Jenson v. Jenson
  980 F.2d 1254· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-01
  The FDIC's attachment lien was not a voidable preference and was properly allowed as a secured claim because it was perfected more than 90 days before the bankruptcy filing.
• In re Greene v. MT. Adams Furniture
  980 F.2d 590· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-25
  The court agrees that tribal sovereign immunity bars the action, but the concurrence notes the unresolved question of whether tribal immunity extends to commercial activities.
• In re Blair B. Woodfield v. Blair B. Woodfield
  978 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1992-10-22
  The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court clearly erred in finding the debtor's intent was not fraudulent.
• 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.
• In re Rebel Coal Co., Inc. v. United States
  944 F.2d 320· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-23
  The court held that the bankrupt estate's claim to recover a preferential transfer was not a compulsory counterclaim to the United States' claim for civil fines, thus not waiving sovereign immunity under § 106(a).
• In re Bluegrass Ford-Mercury, Inc. v. Farmers Nat'l Bank OF Cynthiana
  942 F.2d 381· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-20
  The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the 1977 financing statement did not perfect a security interest in the successor entity's after-acquired inventory, and the SBA loan's security agreement did not extend to the floor plan notes.
• Remex Elecs. Ltd. v. Axl Indus.
  127 B.R. 482· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-20
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the involuntary petition, finding that the debt was subject to a bona fide dispute and that non-bankruptcy remedies were adequate.
• In re Kent Holland DIE Casting & Plating, Inc. v. The Lievense Ins. Agency, Inc.
  928 F.2d 1448· 6th Cir.· 1991-01-07
  An amendment adding a new party does not relate back to the original filing for statute of limitations purposes under FRCP 15(c).
• 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
• In re Meredith Manor, Inc. v. Wheeling Nat'l Bank
  902 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-03
  The court held that the district court correctly applied 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4) by using the 'net result rule' (Garland method) to calculate avoidable preferences in an open credit line scenario.
• 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 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.
• Tomorrow Invs., Inc. v. Ernie Friedman
  510 So. 2d 1095· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-08-04
  The court held that the trial court erred in vacating a prior judgment that awarded the full amount owed to the plaintiff, as the defendant's transfer of the corporation's sole asset to himself while aware of the debt was improper.
• William D. Seidle for the Est. of Airlift Int'l, Inc. v. Gatx Leasing Corp.
  778 F.2d 659· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-16
  A stipulation entered into under 11 U.S.C. § 1110, which allows a debtor to retain possession of aircraft by curing defaults, precludes a bankruptcy trustee from recovering pre-petition payments made pursuant to that stipulation as preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547.
• In re ESM Gov't Sec., Inc.
  52 B.R. 372· S.D. Fla.· 1985-06-19
  The court held that the debtor, ESM Government Securities, Inc., qualified as a stockbroker and its involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding must be administered as a stockbroker liquidation under Subchapter III of the Bankruptcy Code.
• Copter, Inc. v. Gladwin Leasing
  725 F.2d 37· 3d Cir.· 1984-01-04
  The court held that the Pennsylvania insolvency statute's preference provision does not apply to federal bankruptcy proceedings.
• In re Wakefield v. Goldstein
  644 F.2d 707· 8th Cir.· 1981-03-20
  The court held that under Arkansas law, a usurious contract is voidable, not void, and a debtor's release of collateral constitutes a voluntary payment in satisfaction of the debt.
• Mr. and Mrs. William DAY v. Miramar Holding Corp.
  362 So. 2d 305· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-07-18
  In this consolidated appeal arising from supplementary execution proceedings, the court addressed whether a transfer of 37 condominium units and 12 mortgages from El Conquistador Condominium to Continental Consultants Ltd. constituted fraud on creditors. The trial court set aside
• In re Griswold v. Harris Truck & Trailer Sales, Inc.
  559 F.2d 451· 7th Cir.· 1977-06-20
  A secured creditor cannot offset gains from sales of repossessed vehicles under some security agreements against losses from sales under other security agreements if the gains constitute a preference under bankruptcy law.
• Regal Ware, Inc. v. Fid. Corp. & Am. Foresight, Inc.
  550 F.2d 934· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-11
  The court held that Fidelity Corporation, by using its control over insolvent subsidiaries to divert assets and prefer creditors it had guaranteed, could be held liable for the debts of those subsidiaries to other creditors.
• Trimex Corp. & Maclin R. Milner v. Voss
  322 So. 2d 76· Fla. 2d DCA· 1975-10-31
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment against Trimex Corporation for assuming Gulf Marketing's debt, but insufficient evidence to impose personal liability on Maclin R. Milner.
• Paul L. Hanes in Bankr. of Television Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. Crown Camera Sales, Inc.
  468 F.2d 1318· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-07
  The court held that the September 11th letter did not constitute a legal or equitable assignment, and therefore the subsequent payments were preferential transfers for an antecedent debt under the Bankruptcy Act.
• Bankruptcy v. Cent. Nat'l Bank OF Mattoon
  468 F.2d 590· 7th Cir.· 1972-10-25
  A transfer of partnership property to satisfy a partnership debt does not constitute a preference of an individual partner's creditor, even if the partner is insolvent.
• Painter Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Signet Carpet Co., Inc.
  457 F.2d 536· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-24
  A director's withdrawal of funds from an insolvent corporation for personal benefit creates an outstanding obligation that cannot be offset by subsequent payments on the director's personal guaranties.
• In re First Research Corp. v. Caltronics, Inc.
  442 F.2d 1312· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-18
  The court held that Caltronics had standing to contest the Chapter X reorganization petition, regardless of whether the stock transfer was a security interest or a voidable preference.
• Tinney Produce Co., Inc. v. H. A. Phillips in Bankr. for Tinney Produce Co., Inc.
  415 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-17
• Finger Furniture Co. v. Brock
  410 F.2d 568· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-25
  The court held that withholding a chattel mortgage from record to allow the debtor to obtain credit renders the mortgage fraudulent and void, and payments received by the creditor while the debtor is insolvent or imminently insolvent are preferential and voidable.
• Milo F. Vale in Bankr. of Ridge Rd. Inv. Corp. v. Gary Nat'l Bank
  406 F.2d 39· 7th Cir.· 1969-02-05
  The court held that the district court erred in finding the last clause of the amendment to Burns Ind.Stats. (1964 Repl.) § 17-101 unconstitutional under the Indiana "one subject" rule, and that the clause was properly connected to the Act's subject.
• Hoffman v. Breakwater Hous. Corp.
  184 So. 2d 482· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-03-16
  The court held that a general contractor is not a proper defendant in a suit by a bankruptcy trustee to recover alleged preferential payments made to the subcontractor's creditors, as only the recipient of the preference can be sued.
• In re Peoples Mktg. Corp. v. Hackman
  347 F.2d 398· 7th Cir.· 1965-06-01
  The court held that Genesco's actions after discovering potential fraud did not constitute a rescission of the sales contract, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
• Bankert v. Rezey
  337 F.2d 377· 2d Cir.· 1964-10-14
  The district judge was entitled to infer insolvency even if not explicitly stated in the referee's order.
• Whitefish Lumber Co. v. Indus. Supply Co.
  296 F.2d 136· 9th Cir.· 1961-11-02
  The court held that a chattel mortgage, whose renewal affidavit had expired, constituted a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy Act because it was not perfected against subsequent liens.
• Nat'l Disc. Corp. v. Tyson
  247 F.2d 18· 4th Cir.· 1957-08-01
  The court held that the finance company's repossession of chattels constituted a preferential transfer under the Bankruptcy Act because the chattel mortgages were not recorded until shortly before bankruptcy, making them ineffective against subsequent creditors until recording.
• Hempy v. Sims
  246 F.2d 420· 9th Cir.· 1957-05-23
  The court held that the defendants did not have reasonable cause to believe the corporation was insolvent when they received payments for services.
• Exch. Bank OF Kahoka v. Eugene B. Morgan in Bankruptcy of Werner Smith Kemmer
  222 F.2d 567· 8th Cir.· 1955-06-03
  The court held that a chattel mortgage, though dated earlier, is invalid as against the trustee in bankruptcy if not recorded within a reasonable time after execution, especially when intervening credit was extended.
• Cap. Fin. Corp. v. Leveen
  217 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1954-11-18
  The court held that the district court properly remanded the case to determine the alleged bankrupt's true ownership of the property, as an act of bankruptcy requires the transfer of the debtor's own property.
• Lancaster & Love, Inc. v. Mueller Co.
  214 F.2d 353· 8th Cir.· 1954-07-27
  The court held that a second assignment of a contract, which merely clarified the subject matter of a prior assignment, did not constitute a preferential transfer or an act of bankruptcy.
• Davis v. Woolf
  150 F.2d 500· 4th Cir.· 1945-07-16
  The court held that the deed of trust was an invalid preferential transfer because the corporation was insolvent when it was executed, and the lender was a director and party to an indemnity agreement with the surety.
• Pratt v. Chem. Bank & Tr. Co.
  129 F.2d 1016· 2d Cir.· 1942-07-31
  The court held that the banks' set-off of deposits against Jacellen's debt was not an invalid preferential transfer under New York Stock Corporation Law § 15, nor was it an illegal transfer to stockholders.
• In re McKeehan Furniture Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 1927-12-14
  An involuntary bankruptcy petition against McKeehan Furniture Company alleged that the company's consent to the appointment of a receiver in an equity proceeding constituted a general assignment for the benefit of creditors under the fifth act of bankruptcy. The court held that t