The U.S. Supreme Court case Bates v. Dresser (1919) revolved around the issue of whether a bank receiver could recover payments made by an insolvent bank to one of its directors who was also a debtor to the bank, under circumstances where such payments were not authorized by the board of directors and were made with knowledge that they would prefer one creditor over others in violation of state law. The National City Bank had become insolvent and Charles E. Bates was appointed as its receiver while George W. Dresser served as administrator for his father's estate, which owed money to the bank but had received unauthorized loan repayments from it prior to insolvency. The court ruled in favor of Bates, stating that these transactions constituted fraudulent conveyances since they gave preference to certain creditors over others when insolvency was imminent or already present - thus violating Massachusetts' laws on equal distribution among creditors during bankruptcy proceedings. This decision established important precedent regarding fiduciary duty and fairness towards all creditors during bankruptcy situations; highlighting how actions taken by those controlling an institution can be scrutinized even after insolvency has occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Bates v. Dresser, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying recovery of funds from an insolvent bank account went against established legal principles. The dissenting justices believed that when a debtor makes payments with knowledge of insolvency and intent to prefer one creditor over others, such payments are voidable under bankruptcy law. They contended that this principle should apply regardless of whether or not the receiving party is aware of the debtor's insolvency at the time they receive payment. In their view, upholding transactions made in violation of these principles undermines fair treatment among creditors and encourages fraudulent conduct by debtors on brink of bankruptcy.