Legal Opinion · Dissent
In Re Pucci Shoes, Incorporated, Debtor. Raymond A. Yancey v. Robert Varner Virginia Varner
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided July 23, 1997No. 96-2276Published
1DissentHall, Circuit Judge
It is true that 11 U.S.C. § 549(b) does not contain the words “simultaneous” or “contemporaneous.” On the other hand, it does require that the postpetition transfer be in “exchange” for value, and I think that “exchange” implies simultaneity. See In re Williams Contract Furniture, Inc., 148 B.R. 805, 808 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1992); In re Fort Dodge Creamery Co., 121 B.R. 831, 835 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1990) (Section 549(b) “protect[s] contemporaneous exchanges for value”); In re 222 Liberty Associates, 94 B.R. 381, 385 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988) (“[T]he language of § 549(b) ... suggests] that the quid of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cossitt v. First American State Bank (In Re Fort Dodge Creamery Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · 1990
- 222 Liberty Associates v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (In Re 222 Liberty Associates)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- McManus, Stewart, Ferraro & Schwarz, P.A. v. Bakst (In Re Sanchez-Casis)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · 1989
- Shaia v. Conoco, Inc. (In Re Williams Contract Furniture, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 1992