Compton Corp., Matter of
| Decision Date | 12 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1135,87-1135 |
| Citation | 831 F.2d 586,16 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1265 |
| Parties | 17 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 987, 16 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1265, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,107 In the Matter of COMPTON CORP., Debtor. Walter KELLOGG, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE QUAIL ENERGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and MBank Abilene, N.A., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Dean Ferguson, David R. Snodgrass, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
William M. Schur, Theodore Mack, Fort Worth, Tex., for Blue Quail Energy, Inc.
J. Maxwell Tucker, Dallas, Tex., for MBank Abilene, N.A.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before BROWN, JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
This is a bankruptcy preference case in which a bankruptcy trustee seeks to recover a transfer made via a letter of credit for the benefit of one of the debtor's unsecured creditors on the eve of bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court and the district court found there to be no voidable preference. We reverse.
In March 1982, Blue Quail Energy, Inc., delivered a shipment of oil to debtor Compton Corporation. Payment of $585,443.85 for this shipment of oil was due on or about April 20, 1982. Compton failed to make timely payment. Compton induced Abilene National Bank (now MBank-Abilene) to issue an irrevocable standby letter of credit in Blue Quail's favor on May 6, 1982. Under the terms of the letter of credit, payment of up to $585,443.85 was due Blue Quail if Compton failed to pay Blue Quail this amount by June 22, 1982. Compton paid MBank $1,463.61 to issue the letter of credit. MBank also received a promissory note payable on demand for $585,443.85. MBank did not need a security agreement to cover the letter of credit transaction because a prior 1980 security agreement between the bank and Compton had a future advances provision. 1 This 1980 security agreement had been perfected as to a variety of Compton's assets through the filing of several financing statements. The most recent financing statement had been filed a year before, May 7, 1981. The letter of credit on its face noted that it was for an antecedent debt due Blue Quail.
On May 7, 1982, the day after MBank issued the letter of credit in Blue Quail's favor, several of Compton's creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Compton. On June 22, 1982, MBank paid Blue Quail $569,932.03 on the letter of credit after Compton failed to pay Blue Quail.
In the ensuing bankruptcy proceeding, MBank's aggregate secured claims against Compton, including the letter of credit payment to Blue Quail, were paid in full from the liquidation of Compton's assets which served as the bank's collateral. Walter Kellogg, bankruptcy trustee for Compton, did not contest the validity of MBank's secured claim against Compton's assets for the amount drawn under the letter of credit by Blue Quail. Instead, on June 14, 1983, trustee Kellogg filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court against Blue Quail asserting that Blue Quail had received a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547 through the letter of credit transaction. The trustee sought to recover $585,443.85 from Blue Quail pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 550.
Blue Quail answered and filed a third party complaint against MBank. On June 16, 1986, Blue Quail filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the trustee could not recover any preference from Blue Quail because Blue Quail had been paid from MBank's funds under the letter of credit and therefore had not received any of Compton's property. On August 27, 1986, the bankruptcy court granted Blue Quail's motion, agreeing that the payment under the letter of credit did not constitute a transfer of debtor Compton's property but rather was a transfer of the bank's property. The bankruptcy court entered judgment on the motion on September 10, 1986. Trustee Kellogg appealed this decision to the district court. On December 11, 1986, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court ruling, holding that the trustee did not establish two necessary elements of a voidable transfer under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547. The district court agreed with Blue Quail and the bankruptcy court that the trustee could not establish that the funds transferred to Blue Quail were ever property of Compton. Furthermore, the district court held that the transfer of the increased security interest to MBank was a transfer of the debtor's property for the sole benefit of the bank and in no way benefitted Blue Quail. The district court therefore found no voidable preference as to Blue Quail. The trustee is appealing the decision to this Court.
It is well established that a letter of credit and the proceeds therefrom are not property of the debtor's estate under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 541. In re W.L. Mead, Inc., 42 B.R. 57 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio, W.D.1984); In re Lesiure Dynamics, Inc., 33 B.R. 171 (Bankr.Minn.1983); In re North Shore & Central Illinois Freight Co., 30 B.R. 377 (Bankr.N.D.Ill., E.D.1983); In re M.J. Sales & Distributing Co., 25 B.R. 608 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982). When the issuer honors a proper draft under a letter of credit, it does so from its own assets and not from the assets of its customer who caused the letter of credit to be issued. In re W.L. Mead; In re M.J. Sales. As a result, a bankruptcy trustee is not entitled to enjoin a post petition payment of funds under a letter of credit from the issuer to the beneficiary, because such a payment is not a transfer of debtor's property (a threshold requirement under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547(b)). A case apparently holding otherwise, In re Twist Cap., Inc., 1 B.R. 284 (Bankr.Fla. 1979), has been roundly criticized and otherwise ignored by courts and commentators alike.
Recognizing these characteristics of a letter of credit in a bankruptcy case is necessary in order to maintain the independence principle, the cornerstone of letter of credit law. Under the independence principle, an issuer's obligation to the letter of credit's beneficiary is independent from any obligation between the beneficiary and the issuer's customer. All a beneficiary has to do to receive payment under a letter of credit is to show that it has performed all the duties required by the letter of credit. Any disputes between the beneficiary and the customer do not affect the issuer's obligation to the beneficiary to pay under the letter of credit.
Letters of credit are most commonly arranged by a party who benefits from the provision of goods or services. The party will request a bank to issue a letter of credit which names the provider of the goods or services as the beneficiary. Under a standby letter of credit, the bank becomes primarily liable to the beneficiary upon the default of the bank's customer to pay for the goods or services. The bank charges a fee to issue a letter of credit and to undertake this liability. The shifting of liability to the bank rather than to the services or goods provider is the main purpose of the letter of credit. After all, the bank is in a much better position to assess the risk of its customer's insolvency than is the service or goods provider. It should be noted, however, that it is the risk of the debtor's insolvency and not the risk of a preference attack that a bank assumes under a letter of credit transaction. Overall, the independence principle is necessary to insure "the certainty of payments for services or goods rendered regardless of any intervening misfortune which may befall the other contracting party." In re North Shore, 30 B.R. at 378.
The trustee in this case accepts this analysis and does not ask us to upset it. The trustee is not attempting to set aside the post petition payments by MBank to Blue Quail under the letter of credit as a preference; nor does the trustee claim the letter of credit itself constitutes debtor's property. The trustee is instead challenging the earlier transfer in which Compton granted MBank an increased security interest in its assets to obtain the letter of credit for the benefit of Blue Quail. Collateral which has been pledged by a debtor as security for a letter of credit is property of the debtor's estate. In re W.L. Mead, 42 B.R. at 59. The trustee claims that the direct transfer to MBank of the increased security interest on May 6, 1982, also constituted an indirect transfer to Blue Quail which occurred one day prior to the filing of the involuntary bankruptcy petition and is voidable as a preference under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547. This assertion of a preferential transfer is evaluated in Parts III and IV of this opinion.
It is important to note that the irrevocable standby letter of credit in the case at bar was not arranged in connection with Blue Quail's initial decision to sell oil to Compton on credit. Compton arranged for the letter of credit after Blue Quail had shipped the oil and after Compton had defaulted in payment. The letter of credit in this case did not serve its usual function of backing up a contemporaneous credit decision, 2 but instead served as a back up payment guarantee on an extension of credit already in jeopardy. The letter of credit was issued to pay off an antecedent unsecured debt. This fact was clearly noted on the face of the letter of credit. 3 Blue Quail, the beneficiary of the letter of credit, did not give new value for the issuance of the letter of credit by MBank on May 6, 1982, or for the resulting increased security interest held by MBank. MBank, however, did give new value for the increased security interest it obtained in Compton's collateral: the bank issued the letter of credit.
When a debtor pledges its assets to secure a letter of credit, a transfer of debtor's property has occurred under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 547. By subjecting its assets to MBank's reimbursement claim in the event MBank had to pay on the letter of credit, Compton made a transfer of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Admanco Inc. By Michael S. Polsky v. 700 Stanton Drive LLC
...(explaining that the proceeds of an irrevocable letter of credit are not property of the bankruptcy estate); Kellogg v. Blue Quail Energy, Inc., 831 F.2d 586, 589 (5th Cir.1987) (concluding that “[i]t is well established that a letter of credit and the proceeds therefrom are not property of......
-
Branch v. FDIC
...to the bank to obtain the letter of credit), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 557, 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988); In re Compton Corp., 831 F.2d 586, 595 (5th Cir.1987) (same), modified on other grounds on reh'g, 835 F.2d 584 (5th Cir. 1988); see also In re Richmond, 118 B.R. at 758 ("it would......
-
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards
...Inc. of Stuart, 845 F.2d 293, 296-299 (CA11), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 557, 102 L.Ed.2d 584 (1988); In re Compton Corp., 831 F.2d 586, 595 (1987), modified on other grounds, 835 F.2d 584 (CA5 1988). Although we offer no opinion on the merits of that authority or on whether it f......
-
In re Inc.
...874 F.2d 1186, 1196 n. 6 (7th Cir.1989). In addition, the holdings in both Air Conditioning and Kellogg v. Blue Quail Energy, Inc. (In re Compton Corp.), 831 F.2d 586 (5th Cir.1988), which the Eleventh Circuit relied on in Air Conditioning, were limited to banking disputes concerning letter......
-
Recent Bankruptcy Developments Impacting The Landlord-Tenant Relationship
...88 B.R. 830, 834 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1988). 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3). See, e.g., Kellogg v. Blue Quail Energy, Inc. (In re Compton Corp.), 831 F.2d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that letters of credit and their proceeds are not generally found to be property of the bankruptcy estate). Note, ......
-
Reviewing Letters Of Credit As Security For Leases In Bankruptcy: Do You Receive What You Expect?
...court found that letters of credit are not property of the estate, citing Kellogg v. Blue Quail Energy, Inc. (In re Compton Corp.), 831 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1987). The court noted that while the landlords in PPI and Mayan had filed proofs of claim, the Stonebridge landlord did not file a proo......
-
Chapter Five Calculating the Landlord's Lease-Rejection Damages Claim
...letter of credit do not constitute property of the estate under § 541. See, e.g., Kellogg v. Blue Quail Energy Inc. (In re Compton Corp.), 831 F.2d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 1987). Therefore, such proceeds, and in this case, the Drawn Funds, are not subject to turnover under § 542 as property that......
-
CHAPTER 3 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES--SECURING YOUR POSITION
...transformed into a secured obligation by virtue of the granting of a lien to the issuer of the letter of credit. See In re Compton Corp., 831 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1987). [75] Morgenthaler, supra at § 13.02[4] (1986). [76] Morgenthaler, supra (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Philadelphia Gea......
-
Chapter 18 Preferential- and Fraudulent-Transfer Issues
...test for § 547(c)(5) preference).[205] In re Metro Commons Inc., 115 B.R. 849, 857 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1990).[206] In re Compton Corp., 831 F.2d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 1987).[207] Id.[208] In re Richmond Produce Co. Inc., 118 B.R. 753, 760 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1990) (also discussing why it is unlikel......
-
Joshua E. Luber, Letters of Credit and 11 U.s.c. Sec. 502(b)(6): the Full Analysiswhy the Fifth Circuit's Decision in in Re Stonebridge Is Only Part of the Answer
...supra note 13, at 738-40. 82 See MCCULLOUGH, supra note 8, Sec. 2.05(1). 83 Kellogg v. Blue Quail Energy, Inc. (In re Compton Corp.), 831 F.2d 586, 590 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Guy C. Long, Inc. v. Dependable Ins. Co. (In re Guy C. Long, Inc.), 74 B.R. 939, 943 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (stat......