A Hypothetical Question Deserves a Hypothetical Answer: The Ninth Circuit’s Approach to Preference Transfers in In re Tenderloin Health

by Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP
Contact

As a creditor, the news of a debtor who owes you a substantial sum of money filing bankruptcy is often the most alarming news you can learn—that is, until you seek advice of counsel and learn that payments the debtor made to you within 90-days prior to the bankruptcy will be the subject of a lawsuit and likely recoverable by the bankruptcy estate as a “preference.”  This is usually the point I offer soothing chamomile tea to the client.

Recovery of “preference” transfers in bankruptcy cases, though seemingly unfair to the individual creditor, serve an important role and offer a degree of protection to the creditors as a whole.  The primary elements of a preference transfer are relatively straightforward: a debtor who is insolvent, makes a payment or payments to a creditor, within 90 days[1] prior to the bankruptcy filing, to satisfy at least a portion of a pre-existing debt[2], and the creditor receives more than it would have had the debtor filed a chapter 7 (liquidation) bankruptcy case.  Though the “don’t rob Peter to pay Paul” concept appears clear enough, the Ninth Circuit has recently illustrated how complicated the matter can become in In re Tenderloin Health[3] where the court addressed the often overlooked final element to a preference—the “greater amount” test.

As the Ninth Circuit noted, the “greater amount test … ‘requires the court to construct a hypothetical chapter 7 case and determine what the creditor would have received if the case had proceeded under chapter 7’ without the alleged preferential transfer.” Id. at *7.  This task of creating a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation grows ever more daunting as a case grows more complex, leading to uncertainty for a creditor client, especially when unresolved legal issues come up within the hypothetical bankruptcy.

In Tenderloin Health, the debtor sold property and paid off a debt of $190,595.50 to Bank of the West (“BOTW”) and concurrently deposited the net proceeds of $526,402.05 into debtor’s deposit account with BOTW; all within ninety days prior to filing bankruptcy.  It is important to note that the paid off loan had been secured by the deposit account—therefore, even if BOTW was not paid in full, BOTW could have setoff its debt against the funds in the account.  The bankruptcy court granted defendant’s summary judgment and ruled, in short, that the $190,595.50 debt payoff could not be a preference payment because, whether or not the payoff was made, there were enough funds to cover the debt in the bank account and BOTW would have held a right to setoff against those funds in a hypothetical chapter 7.

Now, fasten your safety belt because the Ninth Circuit took this concept on a wild ride.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling of the bankruptcy court, essentially finding that the court did not take the hypothetical analysis far enough.  The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, in a hypothetical chapter 7 where the payoff of BOTW’s debt never happened, a hypothetical chapter 7 trustee would hypothetically avoid the $526,402.05 deposited in the account as a preference leaving insufficient funds to satisfy BOTW’s debt when BOTW hypothetically seeks a setoff to satisfy their debt against the amounts in the account. This dizzying analysis illustrates the potential for a deepening trench of hypotheticals when faced with a preference action.

The lengthy Tenderloin Health opinion supports its conclusion that a hypothetical preference action can be considered through a detailed analysis of the statute text, legislative history, and recent case law, finding that as long as the hypothetical analysis is based on “actual facts of the case” it is permissible.  The court then walked the reader through the hypothetical chapter 7 with a thorough analysis of two hypotheticals within the hypothetical bankruptcy—including the hypothetical interplay between those two hypotheticals.  At this point, it is important to remember that an actual preference action requires a separate lawsuit, complete with proper service of a complaint, discovery and evidence presented at trial, if necessary.  Similarly, a setoff in bankruptcy would require BOTW to file, and sufficiently prove a separate action.[4]

The litigating of hypothetical claims seems to hit a tipping point when one considers the reasoned concurrence of Judge Edward R. Korman. Though Judge Korman concurs in the judgment, he disagrees with the majority’s conclusion as to the hypotheticals.  Judge Korman’s analysis of a hypothetical preference action and a hypothetical setoff leads him to the conclusion that the entire $526,402.05 deposited would not be avoided as a preference because the funds would first be subject to the setoff rights of BOTW.  This disagreement encapsulates the danger in the incomplete litigation of hypothetical actions—which naturally should include all applicable hypothetical defenses.  As Judge Korman seems to put it best:

[I]n a hypothetical liquidation, there is no such gatekeeper to protect other claimants. There is of course no actual bankruptcy judge available to exercise discretion in such a case, and it would push the already somewhat strained boundaries of our hypothetical analysis too far to exercise our own discretion, sitting as a three-headed hypothetical bankruptcy judge, weighing the imaginary equities of a fantasy liquidation. The majority asserts that this adds a new variable to what is supposed to be a controlled experiment, but so would exercising our own discretion—by substituting our judgment for that of the real bankruptcy judge.

Id. at *36 (emphasis original; citations omitted).

In the end, a creditor client’s rights when facing a preference action, though seemingly straightforward at the outset, may include a labyrinth of complex considerations, including the layers of hypotheticals addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Tenderloin Health.  Counsel and the client, alike must be sufficiently prepared to litigate not only the facts of the case, but the facts as applicable to a number of potential proceedings that could arise in a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation.

_____________________________________________________

[1] Or one year for “insiders” of the Debtor, including officers, managers, or relatives of the debtor.

[2] See 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).

[3] __ F.3d  __, No. 14-17090, 2017 WL 894461 (9th Cir. 2017); http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/07/14-17090.pdf.

[4] Setoff is permitted under section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code to the extent permitted under state law. This would require BOTW to seek relief from the automatic stay to pursue the setoff action or otherwise seek relief under California law in the bankruptcy court.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP
Contact
more
less

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!