Connection lost
Server error
Whirlpool Corp. v. hhgregg, Inc. (In re hhgregg, Inc.) Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A seller attempted to reclaim goods from a bankrupt buyer. The court held that the seller’s reclamation right was subordinate to a lender’s pre-existing, floating security interest in the buyer’s inventory, based on the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that post-BAPCPA, a seller’s reclamation right under § 546(c) is explicitly subordinate to a prior perfected security interest, eliminating the need to analyze the secured creditor’s “good faith purchaser” status under the UCC within a bankruptcy proceeding.
Whirlpool Corp. v. hhgregg, Inc. (In re hhgregg, Inc.) Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
hhgregg, Inc., a retailer, had a prepetition credit facility with Wells Fargo, secured by a first-priority floating lien on substantially all assets, including existing and after-acquired inventory. In the 45 days before hhgregg filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Whirlpool Corp. sold goods to hhgregg in the ordinary course of business. After the bankruptcy filing, Whirlpool made a timely written demand to reclaim these goods pursuant to UCC § 2-702 and Bankruptcy Code § 546(c). The bankruptcy court then approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing agreement, also with Wells Fargo as agent, which granted Wells Fargo priming, first-priority liens on the same collateral, effective as of the petition date. The DIP loan proceeds were used to pay down the prepetition debt, and Wells Fargo was also granted replacement liens to adequately protect its prepetition security interest. The hhgregg reorganization ultimately failed, and all inventory, including the Whirlpool goods, was sold. Whirlpool commenced an adversary proceeding, seeking a declaration that its reclamation right in the goods or their proceeds was superior to Wells Fargo’s security interest.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under § 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code as amended by BAPCPA, does a seller’s right to reclaim goods from an insolvent debtor take priority over a secured creditor’s pre-existing and continuous floating lien on the debtor’s after-acquired inventory?
No. The court granted summary judgment for the secured lender, Wells Fargo. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under § 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code as amended by BAPCPA, does a seller’s right to reclaim goods from an insolvent debtor take priority over a secured creditor’s pre-existing and continuous floating lien on the debtor’s after-acquired inventory?
Conclusion
The decision solidifies the priority of secured creditors with floating liens over Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Rule
A seller's right of reclamation under 11 U.S.C. § 546(c) is expressly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in v
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the dispositive effect of the 2005 BAPCPA Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, c
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The 2005 BAPCPA amendment to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c) makes a