In the 1942 case Emil, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Hanley, Receiver, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bankruptcy trustee could recover payments made by an insolvent debtor to its creditor within four months of filing for bankruptcy. The debtor had been operating under a receivership at the time of payment and continued operations until it filed for bankruptcy three months later. The Court held that such payments were not voidable preferences under Section 60b of the Bankruptcy Act because they did not enable the creditor to obtain a greater percentage of his debt than other creditors of the same class. This decision clarified how "voidable preferences" should be interpreted in relation to insolvency law and provided important guidance on how assets should be distributed among creditors when a company goes bankrupt.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Emil, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Hanley, Receiver argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of bankruptcy law. The dissent contended that a trustee should not be allowed to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor prior to declaring bankruptcy if those payments were made as part of regular business transactions and did not prefer one creditor over another. They believed this interpretation would better serve the purpose of equitable distribution among creditors, which is a fundamental principle underlying bankruptcy law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "voidable preferences," arguing it could lead to unjust outcomes where honest creditors who received payment for services rendered could be forced to return funds simply because their debtor later became bankrupt.