Deprizio Construction Co. v. Ingersoll Rand Financial Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
874 F.2d 1186 (1989)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
V. N. Deprizio Construction Co. (the company) (debtor) was a construction company in Chicago, Illinois, hired to extend Chicago’s subway system to O’Hare Airport. The company experienced financial difficulties, and, in February 1983, the company received loans from Chicago and several banks (collectively, the lenders) (creditors). Richard Deprizio, the president of the company, and his brothers, insiders of the company, guaranteed the loans. The company made several payments on the loans. In April 1983, the company filed for bankruptcy. A trustee was appointed to oversee the bankruptcy. The trustee attempted to recover payments on the loans guaranteed by the Deprizio brothers made by the company up to one year before the company filed for bankruptcy. The trustee argued that he could recover the payments because they were preferences made by the company for the benefit of inside creditors, the Deprizio brothers. The lenders challenged the recovery, arguing that the trustee could only recover preferences paid to outside creditors that were made up to 90 days before the company filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court held in favor of the lenders, holding that the trustee could not collect the preferences made over 90 days before the company filed for bankruptcy. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court, holding that the trustee could recover preferences paid to the lenders for the benefit of the Deprizio brothers made up to one year before the company filed for bankruptcy. The lenders appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.