In the case of McKenzie, Trustee in Bankruptcy, v. Irving Trust Co., 1944, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bankruptcy trustee could recover payments made by an insolvent debtor to its creditor within four months prior to filing for bankruptcy. The debtor had granted security interests to its creditor and later paid off part of this secured debt before declaring bankruptcy. Under Section 60(b) of the Bankruptcy Act, such transfers can be voided if they are deemed preferential - that is favoring one creditor over others. However, under Section 60(a), a transfer cannot be considered preferential if it's followed by new value given to the debtor. The main issue was whether these payments were "for or on account of" old debts (which would make them potentially avoidable as preferences) or instead represented new value provided after granting security interests (which would protect them from avoidance). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Irving Trust Co., holding that when a payment is made on account of both secured and unsecured portions of a debt simultaneously without any specific allocation between them by either party at time it’s made; then such payment should not be treated as being 'on account' solely for older unsecured portion but also towards newer secured portion thus constituting 'new value'. This decision limited trustees’ ability to claw back pre-bankruptcy transfers thereby providing some protection for creditors who receive repayments shortly before their debtors declare bankruptcy.

In the dissenting opinion for McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and could lead to unfair outcomes in future cases. He contended that a bankruptcy trustee should not be able to recover payments made by an insolvent debtor before declaring bankruptcy, especially when those payments were made in good faith and without knowledge of insolvency. According to him, such recovery would unfairly penalize creditors who had no reason to suspect their debtor's financial instability at the time of payment. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling might affect commercial transactions if businesses have to worry about potential clawbacks from future bankruptcies long after receiving payment.