If you received a bankruptcy preference demand, the first reaction is often simple: How fast can this be resolved? That instinct is understandable. Preference claims can feel technical, expensive, and oddly unfair—especially when the payments came from ordinary business transactions that seemed routine at the time.
But settlement leverage in a preference case often turns on one thing: how well the defense is developed before the other side sizes up your file.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 547, a trustee or estate representative may try to avoid certain prepetition transfers, including many payments made in the 90 days before bankruptcy, and in some insider situations the lookback can extend to one year. The statute also includes defenses and exceptions, including ordinary course, contemporaneous exchange, and subsequent new value. In other words, a demand letter is not the same thing as a finished liability analysis. The statute itself anticipates defenses. The 2019 amendment even added language requiring a plaintiff to account for “reasonable due diligence” and “known or reasonably knowable affirmative defenses” before bringing the claim. Bankruptcy filings have also risen in recent years, which can mean more avoidance activity and more pressure on creditors to respond strategically rather than emotionally. According to the federal judiciary, total bankruptcy filings rose 16.2% in the year ending June 30, 2024, and business filings rose 40.3% in that period (U.S. Courts).
This post focuses on the defense side of that equation. In this post you’ll learn seven common preference defense mistakes that can quietly weaken negotiation posture, why they matter, and how a more disciplined response can change the conversation. If you want the broader framework first, it may help to start with this overview of how preference clawback claims work and where defense strategy fits in.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
Preference disputes are usually framed as math problems: payment dates, invoice dates, shipment dates, unpaid balances, and chapter 7 liquidation analysis. But settlement leverage often comes from story plus proof.
A plaintiff evaluating settlement is typically asking questions like:
Those questions matter because the plaintiff still carries the burden on the basic elements of a preference claim, while the creditor generally bears the burden on preference defenses under Section 547(c). That allocation alone can affect negotiation strategy, especially where the record is incomplete or the payment history is more nuanced than the demand letter suggests (11 U.S.C. § 547).
And if the matter proceeds, it may become an adversary proceeding—a separate lawsuit inside the bankruptcy case. The federal judiciary describes adversary proceedings as separate civil lawsuits arising in bankruptcy cases, and many arise in chapter 11 matters (U.S. Courts). That procedural shift tends to reward parties who built their factual record early.
One of the most common leverage-killing mistakes is assuming the demand letter already proves the claim.
In general terms, a preference demand is often an opening position, not a final adjudication. A valid preference action under Section 547(b) generally requires several elements, including a transfer to a creditor, on account of an antecedent debt, made while the debtor was insolvent, during the applicable lookback period, that allowed the creditor to receive more than it would have received in a chapter 7 liquidation if the transfer had not been made (11 U.S.C. § 547).