The Contemporaneous Alternate for New Worth Protection — Tennessee Enterprise Litigation Legal professionals Weblog — April 21, 2020

The contemporaneous alternate for brand new worth protection, 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(1), is certainly one of a number of defenses within the Chapter Code {that a} creditor might be able to use efficiently to defeat the declare of a chapter trustee, or different plaintiff, that the creditor ought to should repay cash paid to it by the now bankrupt debtor earlier than that debtor filed for chapter.  This protection is relevant to all actions filed in chapter courts positioned in Nashville or different cities in Tennessee.

This protection permits a creditor, which equipped items or companies, at or close to the identical time that the debtor paid for these companies, to keep away from legal responsibility for what would in any other case be a preferential fee. The aim of the contemporaneous alternate for brand new worth protection is to encourage a creditor to maintain doing enterprise with a buyer which is having monetary points.

Though it’s not a case determined by the federal circuit by which chapter courts in Nashville and different components of Tennessee are positioned (the 6th Circuit), the case of Payless Cashways, Inc. (8th Cir. 2004) offers a useful evaluation of the protection, and one which any Tennessee chapter courtroom could be anticipated to use.

Listed below are the fundamental information of the case:

  • The debtor which had filed chapter (“Debtor”) was a enterprise which bought house enchancment merchandise at retail
  • The creditor which was sued by the trustee for the restoration of desire funds (“Creditor”) was a lumber provider
  • Creditor had equipped lumber to Debtor earlier than it filed its first chapter
  • After Debtor filed its first chapter, Creditor required Debtor to pay for lumber on a cash-in-advance foundation by Digital Fund Switch (“EFT”)
  • After some time, Creditor considerably loosened its fee coverage
  • Debtor filed a second chapter
  • On the time of the preferential funds at concern, Creditor had agreed to ship all lumber by way of vacation spot contracts, F.O.B. the Debtor’s amenities. The lumber was shipped by way of truck or rail, and Creditor’s bill dates have been all the time the date of cargo.
  • On the time of the desire funds at concern, the Creditor and Debtor had agreed to aim to match the date the lumber shipments would arrive at Debtor’s amenities with its obligation to pay, and had agreed that each one funds could be by EFT.
  • Cost phrases have been primarily based on whether or not the lumber could be shipped by truck or rail. Lumber shipped by rail typically took 12-14 days, whereas lumber shipped by truck typically took 3-5 days.
  • Through the related interval, Debtor paid Creditor for rail shipments inside 10.9 days after the date of the bill, on common, and inside 3.2 days, on common, for rail shipments
  • For all shipments, with minor exceptions, Debtor paid Creditor for particular shipments earlier than, or at, the time they arrived at Debtor’s amenities
  • Neither Creditor nor Debtor saved common data of when shipments arrived at Debtor’s amenities
  • The trustee introduced a desire motion in search of to get better 4 transfers made by Debtor

The chapter courtroom held that Creditor had carried its burden of creating the contemporaneous alternate for brand new worth protection, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed its choice. It discovered that Creditor had confirmed all three components of the protection: (1) That each Debtor and Creditor meant the deliveries of lumber and funds to be contemporaneous exchanges; (2) that the exchanges have been, in actual fact, considerably contemporaneous; and (3) that the exchanges have been for brand new worth.


As identified by the Eighth Circuit, the “vital inquiry” with respect to the contemporaneous alternate for brand new worth protection is whether or not the events “meant such an alternate.”  The courtroom discovered that 4 elements established the intent factor of the protection. First, previous to the shipments and funds in query, the Debtor and Creditor had a gathering to debate Creditor’s considerations about its credit score publicity. At that assembly, Debtor had agreed to the fee methodology described above, which the courtroom discovered was burdensome to it.

Second, the courtroom discovered that each Debtor and Creditor thought of their association to be the identical, primarily, as a money transaction association.

Third, the entire events’ contracts have been vacation spot contracts and never cargo contracts. Due to this reality, the courtroom discovered that the events didn’t intend for Debtor to acquire possession till it had paid for the lumber.

Fourth, the courtroom discovered that the trustee didn’t show that Debtor ever obtained a cargo of lumber previous to the time it wired fee for the cargo.



The courtroom discovered that the proof established that Debtor paid for some shipments of lumber earlier than they arrived and that there was no proof that any shipments of lumber by rail arrived previous to Debtor having paid for them.  Along with that proof associated to the cargo, arrival and fee dates, the courtroom concluded that, for all shipments of lumber, the time between cargo and fee by EFT (not contemplating arrival) was all the time inside 15 days.  It discovered that period of time to be considerably contemporaneous given the context of the events’ agreements.



The trustee argued that Creditor gave no new worth as a result of the transactions between Creditor and Debtor have been primarily credit score transactions whereby Creditor supplied items and issued an bill for which it anticipated fee at a later time.  The courtroom concluded that, whereas, at first blush, the truth that Creditor issued invoices on the occasions of cargo could have given the looks of credit score transactions, the truth that Creditor shipped by way of vacation spot contracts, and  the events’ agreements in regards to the timing of funds, rebutted any conclusion that typical credit score transactions have been concerned.  Beneath vacation spot contracts, the courtroom identified, the Creditor retained title to the lumber till it was delivered.  Thus, the courtroom concluded it “was supply somewhat than cargo that was the brand new worth.”


If you’re the topic of a desire fee lawsuit arising from a chapter, you need to seek the advice of with an skilled Nashville business litigation lawyer to find out your rights and the viability of any defenses you may need.

About Bilgi


Check Also

FCA Publishes Assertion About Policyholder Engagement for BI Check Instances – Cooley Insure

On 15 Could 2020, the Monetary Conduct Authority issued a assertion setting out how it’s …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *