Bankruptcy

In re: Wilkins — Study Notes

In re: Wilkins, 765 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2023)

Study notes for In re: Wilkins: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Transfers made with the intent to hinder or defraud creditors can be voided under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A).
Professor Notes

In re: Wilkins highlights the importance of scrutinizing transfers made by debtors prior to filing for bankruptcy. The court emphasized that an intention to defraud creditors can be established through the timing and nature of the transfers, especially if they are made to close relatives. This case serves as a pivotal reminder of the broad reach of the Bankruptcy Code's provisions against fraudulent transfers, particularly under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A), where the intentionality behind the debtor's actions is key to determining fraudulent intent.

Additionally, the court's interpretation of what constitutes 'intent to hinder, delay, or defraud' creditors underscores the need for debtors to maintain transparency. The ruling reinforces the role of the trustee in monitoring past transactions and protecting the interests of the estate by preventing the insider preferential treatment that could undermine the equitable distribution to creditors. This case should prompt students to think critically about the implications of personal transactions in bankruptcy proceedings.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What factors the court considered in determining fraudulent intent in Wilkins?
  2. 2Explain the significance of the two-year window for scrutinizing transfers in bankruptcy filings.
  3. 3What standard did the court apply in assessing whether a transfer was fraudulent?
  4. 4Discuss how this case relates to other cases involving familial transfers in bankruptcy.
  5. 5What are the implications of Wilkins for debtors considering pre-bankruptcy asset transfers?
Mnemonic Device

F.R.A.U.D. = Fraudulent Transfers Require Awareness of Undue Delay.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
In re: YostIn Yost, the debtor successfully argued the transfers were legitimate and not made with fraudulent intent, distinguishing it from Wilkins where intent was clear.
In re: ShermanSherman involved transfers made long before the bankruptcy filing, which reduced the likelihood of finding fraudulent intent versus the close timing in Wilkins.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Allowing the court to void fraudulent transfers promotes fairness in the bankruptcy system, ensuring that all creditors are treated equitably.

Against the Rule

Critics might argue that strict interpretations of fraudulent transfer laws can discourage legitimate family support and asset transfers before filing for bankruptcy.

Class Discussion Points
  • The impact of familial relationships on perceptions of fraudulent transfers.
  • The role of intent versus effect in determining whether a transfer is fraudulent.
  • Potential reforms to prevent the exploitation of bankruptcy laws by debtors.
  • The ethical considerations for debtors and trustees in managing pre-bankruptcy asset transfers.
  • Trends in case law regarding the enforcement of fraudulent transfer provisions.
Exam Angle

Students can expect questions on the elements required to prove fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A), emphasizing the burden of proof as well as the importance of intent and timing of the transfers.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.