In the case of Board of Trade of the City of Chicago et al. v. Johnson, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Henderson (1923), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bankruptcy and commodity futures contracts. The court decided that such contracts were not voidable preferences under section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act because they did not involve transfer but rather cancellation or liquidation through offsetting transactions at market price, which was deemed to be fair consideration for purposes of this law. This ruling clarified how these types financial instruments should be treated in bankruptcy proceedings and established an important precedent regarding their legal status.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Board of Trade of The City Of Chicago et al. v. Johnson, Trustee in Bankruptcy Of Henderson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation that a contract made on a commodity exchange was not enforceable unless it involved actual delivery or transfer of goods. He argued that such contracts were essential to hedging against price fluctuations and thus played an important role in commerce. Furthermore, he contended that these contracts did not violate public policy as they served legitimate business purposes and were widely accepted by society at large. Therefore, according to him, there was no reason why they should be deemed illegal or unenforceable under bankruptcy law.