Every law teacher and many law students and practitioners understand the intellectual sport to be found in Section 547 on preference law. Because the preference rules are so intricate, rigorously logical-but really not logical-they command more than their fair attention, not only in law school but also in continuing legal education and even in the courts. Our purpose in this article is not to answer any of the difficult questions or to give a global explanation of preference law. Rather it is to confront a few of the conundrums in Section 547 and to follow the paths of those conundrums a little farther into the bush than have others. We concentrate on four preference problems. The first is the application of 547(c)(5), the exception for after-acquired property. Second, we examine the vitality of the old arguments that were used where 547(c)(5) is now used. Surprisingly some parts of those have survived the enactment of the 1978 Code. Next we deal with the question when is the hypothetical date of liquidation under (b)(5) and we conclude with a first cousin of the Deprizio issue-the issues arising when a payment to one creditor arguably causes a preference to another. Those interested in answers should not look here. This is for those interested in playing in the complexities of preference law.
White, James J. "Preference Conundrums." D. Israel, co-author. Com. L. J. 98 (1993): 1-20.