In re: Jackson [2010]
433 B.R. 239 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois · United States
Issue
Whether the perfection of a security interest within the preference period constitutes a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that can be avoided as a preference under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Held
The transfer occurred for preference purposes when the security interest attached, not when it was perfected; because attachment and perfection occurred within the preference period, the transfer was avoidable.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce In re: Jackson with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what In re: Jackson decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Voidable preferences / security interests as transfers, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
In re: Jackson is included in the Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code) case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Voidable preferences / security interests as transfers. The reported citation is 433 B.R. 239, and the decision is associated with United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
Procedural History
Issue
Whether the perfection of a security interest within the preference period constitutes a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that can be avoided as a preference under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Held
The transfer occurred for preference purposes when the security interest attached, not when it was perfected; because attachment and perfection occurred within the preference period, the transfer was avoidable.
Ratio Decidendi
For UCC Article 9 security interests, a transfer under Bankruptcy Code § 547(e) is deemed to occur at the time the security interest is perfected (or at attachment if perfection occurs within 30 days); otherwise it is the time of perfection.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
Plain-English Explanation
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to In re: Jackson (433 B.R. 239) strengthens a Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code) answer because the case reflects the principle that For UCC Article 9 security interests, a transfer under Bankruptcy Code § 547(e) is deemed to occur at the time the security interest is perfected (or at attachment if perfection occurs within 30 days); otherwise it is the time of perfection. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the perfection of a security interest within the preference period constitutes a transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that can be avoided as a preference under § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
- secured-transactions-article-9-of-the-uniform-commercial-code
- Secured Transactions (Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code)
- Voidable preferences / security interests as transfers
- case authority
- exam application
Key Passages
- Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Common Pitfalls
- Name-dropping the case without applying the facts
- Ignoring jurisdiction or procedural posture
- Quoting without checking the linked source