In the case of Chandler v. Peketz (1935), the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over bankruptcy proceedings and property rights. The appellant, Chandler, was a receiver in bankruptcy for an insolvent company that had previously sold its assets to Peketz under a conditional sales contract. When the company went bankrupt before fully paying off this debt, Chandler sought to reclaim these assets on behalf of creditors arguing that Ohio state law invalidated such contracts if they were not recorded properly - which it hadn't been in this case. However, Peketz argued that he should be allowed to keep them because federal bankruptcy law protected his right as a bona fide purchaser without notice of any defect in his title. The court ruled 6-2 in favor of Peketz stating that while state laws can determine property interests outside of bankruptcy proceedings; once insolvency occurs federal law takes precedence and must respect those rights already established by good faith purchasers even if they would have been voidable under state law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chandler v. Peketz argued that the majority's decision to allow a receiver to recover funds paid out by an insolvent company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling unfairly penalized those who had received payments from the company in good faith, without any knowledge of its insolvency. They pointed out that under normal circumstances, these transactions would be perfectly legal and acceptable business practices. Furthermore, they expressed concern over how such a ruling could potentially disrupt commerce by creating uncertainty around all transactions involving companies on shaky financial ground. In their view, it was not reasonable or fair to expect every individual doing business with a company to investigate its solvency before accepting payment for goods or services rendered.