Ninth Circuit Holds Courts May Entertain Hypothetical Preference Actions Within Section 547(b)(5)'s Hypothetical Liquidation Analysis

In Schoenmann v. Bank of the West (In re Tenderloin Health), No. 14-17090, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-03992-JSW, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in favor of Bank of the West ("BOTW") in an adversary proceeding for avoidance of a preferential transfer brought by a Chapter 7 trustee ("Trustee"). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held "that courts may entertain hypothetical preference actions within section 547(b)(5)'s hypothetical liquidation when such an inquiry is factually warranted, supported by appropriate evidence, and so long as the hypothetical preference action would not result in a direct conflict with another section of the Bankruptcy Code."

In 2009 and 2011, Tenderloin Health ("Debtor") obtained a $300,000 loan from BOTW, secured in part by the Debtor's deposit accounts with BOTW. In late 2011 or early 2012, the Debtor wound up its affairs and sold its only real property. From the sale proceeds, the Debtor paid BOTW $190,595.50 ("Transfer") to fully satisfy its outstanding loan obligation and the Debtor deposited the remaining sale proceeds of $526,402.05 in its BOTW deposit account. On July 20, 2012, the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy ("Petition Date"). As of the Petition Date, the Debtor's BOTW deposit account contained $564,115.92.

In the preference action, the Trustee sought to recover the Transfer, which was made to BOTW within ninety days of the Petition Date. At issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether the "greater amount test" under 11 U.S.C. ยง 547(b)(5) had been met. Under Section 547(b)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee had to demonstrate that by virtue of the Transfer, BOTW received more than it would have in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation had the Transfer not occurred. The bankruptcy court granted BOTW's motion for summary judgment, finding BOTW did not receive more than it would have in a hypothetical liquidation because it maintained a right to setoff that entitled it to full payment, and the Debtor's deposit account held sufficient funds on the Petition Date. However, the Trustee asserted that she could avoid the $526,402.05 deposit in a hypothetical liquidation, resulting in only $37,713.87 in the BOTW deposit account on the Petition Date, which was significantly less than the $190,595.50 BOTW received, even allowing for setoff. The Ninth Circuit found that because the Trustee could demonstrate that BOTW received more due to the Transfer than it would have in hypothetical liquidation, summary judgment was improper.

To see the full opinion, please click here.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • NBLSC Board Certified Lawyer Rated By Super Lawyers | Ryan P. Durham Rated By Super Lawyers | Ben Boston
  • Tennessee Association For Justice | Member 2015-2016 American Association For Premier DUI Attorneys The National Trial Lawyers | Top 100 Trial Lawyers
  • American Institute of Family Law Attorneys | 10 best 2015 American Institute of Personal Injury attorneys | 10 best 2016 AV preeminent |  Jeffery Broker

Schedule a Consultation Today

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Shulman Bastian LLP | Full Service. Business. Lawyers.

Irvine
100 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 600
Irvine, CA 92618

Map & Directions

Riverside
3550 Vine Street
Suite 210
Riverside, CA 92507

Map & Directions