Publication Date

Summer 1999

Journal

American Bankruptcy Law Journal

Abstract

The article argues that the earmarking doctrine, a judge-created exception to 547b liability, should be reinterpreted under 547c1 of the Bankruptcy Code. It posits that the doctrine's current reliance on vague concepts like "control" is legally unsound and inconsistent with statutory intent. By aligning earmarking with the contemporaneous exchange defense under 547c1, the analysis would focus on the parties' intent and the timing of the exchange, eliminating the need for the controversial control criterion. This approach would bring clarity and consistency to bankruptcy law, preventing arbitrary outcomes and ensuring compliance with the Bankruptcy Code.

Volume

73

Issue

3

First Page

591

Last Page

652

Publisher

National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges (NCBJ)

Disciplines

Banking and Finance Law | Bankruptcy Law | Courts | Jurisdiction | Law

Download

Share

COinS