In re Howell Enterprises, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
934 F.2d 969 (1991)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Howell Enterprises, Inc. (Howell) (plaintiff), a rice mill, took out a loan from the First National Bank of Stuttgart, Arkansas (the Bank) and gave the Bank a security interest in its accounts receivable. Bar Schwartz Limited (Bar Schwartz) wanted to buy rice from Howell using a commercial letter of credit, which Howell refused to accept. Bar Schwartz would not buy from Tradax America, Inc. (Tradax), so Howell and Tradax agreed that Tradax would use Howell’s name to sell the rice. In its books, Howell included the contract with Bar Schwartz in its accounts receivable. Bar Schwartz gave Howell the letter of credit, which was to be paid to Tradax on maturity. Before then, Howell entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bank asserted its perfected security interest in Howell’s accounts receivable. Tradax sued, arguing that the Bar Schwartz transaction was not an account receivable or that the letter was held in constructive trust. The bankruptcy court concluded that Tradax had an equitable interest and that the letter of credit was held in constructive trust for its benefit, but that the Bank had a perfected security interest in the letter and was a bona fide purchase for value. Thus, the court awarded the letter to the Bank, and Tradax appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenbaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.
