The U.S. Supreme Court case BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, et al., 1993 revolved around the issue of whether a mortgage foreclosure sale that was properly conducted according to state law could be set aside as a fraudulent transfer under federal bankruptcy law if the property sold for less than its fair market value. The court held in favor of Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), ruling that such sales cannot be considered fraudulent transfers simply because they do not fetch fair market value prices. This decision clarified an important aspect of bankruptcy laws and provided guidance on how these laws interact with state foreclosure procedures, establishing that price inadequacy alone does not constitute grounds for setting aside a transaction as fraudulently transferred under federal bankruptcy provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to define "reasonably equivalent value" in terms of state foreclosure law was incorrect and overly simplistic. He contended that this approach failed to consider other factors such as whether a property was sold under duress or if there were any fraudulent intentions involved in the sale. Furthermore, he believed it did not adequately protect debtors from unfair treatment by creditors during foreclosure proceedings. Instead, he proposed a more flexible standard which would take into account all relevant circumstances surrounding a transaction when determining its fairness and validity under bankruptcy law.