Preferential Transfers (11 U.S.C. § 547)

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

• 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
• 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 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 Muncrief v. MT. Prospect State Bank
  900 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's finding of debtor insolvency was not clearly erroneous, and the bankruptcy court clearly erred in finding the debtor solvent.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.