### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Febru ary1 0, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 04- 1220 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 02-61584 -CIV -JIC BKC Y N o. 98-25090 -BK C-RB R INTERNATIONAL MANAG EMENT ASSOC., De btor. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- W ILLIAM B. REILY, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us SO NE ET R. KA PIL A, Tr ustee for In te rn at io na l M an ag em en t As so ci at es , Inc ., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 10 , 200 5)Ho no ra ble Ric ha rd D. Cud ahy , Unit e d St ate s Ci rc uit Judg e fo r t

he Se ve nth

Cir c uit , * sitti ngby desig nation. 2 Be fo re BI RC H , KRA V IT CH and C U D A H Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * CUD AH Y, Circuit Judge: Pl at o on ce sa id tha t “ [w ] he n aBe ne fi t i s w ro ngl y c onf er re d, the auth or

of the Benefit m ay

often be said to injure. ” T he bankruptcy claim presented here, br ough t by

aCh ap te r 7 bankr

upt cy tr ust ee , se ek s avoi danc e of a$10 0, 000 pa ym en t t o ash areh ol de r in th e d eb to r co rp or at io ns pu rs ua nt to 11 U.S.C. § 5 48 . T he pot en tia l r ec ove ry

of that paym en t un de r 11 U . S. C. § 55 0( a) (1 ) re qui re s us to assess whether providing th e unquanti fiable key to a larger

transaction can qualify a party a s an “ en tity

f or w hose be ne fi t” aput at ive ly voi dable tr an sf

er is m ad e. 11 U. S. C. § 550 (a)( 1) (2004). W e believe that, under the circum stances presented here, “ benefit” has been too broadly defined to m eet the re quirem ents of 11 U. S. C. § 5 50 (a)( 1) . I. A lth oughthe br ie fs sub m itt ed he re are not

ve ry inf orm at ive about

e ith er the re le vant f ac ts o r the pr ec ise iss ue s, w e thi nk tha t the f ac ts c an be use fu lly sum m ar iz ed . T he ins tant b an kr upt cy inv olv es anum

be r of int er loc kin g corporations th at provided and m anaged assisted liv ing facilities in sou thern3

Fl or ida . F our

of the se c or por at ion s op er at ed

a ssi ste d li vin g f

ac ili tie s, and the f

if th, International Managem ent Associates (I MA) , w as form ed to provid e a m an ag em en t ve hic le f

or the ope ratin g c om

panie s and t o pe rm it tho se c om panie s to share overhead expenses. The assets of the four operating com panies wer e subjec t to a se cu rit y

in te res t i n fa vo r of

a co rp or at e le nd er, Heal th Care REIT. IM Aw as f

orm ed by D r. G ad i G ic hon an d th e la te G av ri el S ha de in 1995 to m an ag e the ope ratio ns o f the or igi na l a ssi ste d li vin g f ac ili ty . D r. G ic hon an d Shade entere d into an am algam ation agreem ent with W illiam B. Reily later that sam e y ear, wher eby

the three becam e equal shareholders in IMAand other associated corporations. At that tim e, Gic hon app arently loaned the origin al as sis te d li vin g f

ac ili ty c or por at ion$59 0, 000, and tha t c om pany e xe cu te d a prom issory

note pay able to him . In 1996, the am algam ation agreem ent was am en de d a ft er

thr ee a ddi tio na l a ssi ste d li vin g f ac ili tie s w er e pur ch as ed

and fi nanc ed thr oughH ea lthCare RE IT . I t w as not lon g be fo re the li vin g f

ac ili ty venture encountered financial difficulties, and in early 1997 Reily

wa s rem oved f r o m man a g e me n tan dw a s r e p l a c e db y a n o t h e r i n d i v i du a l . F i n a n c i a l p r o b l e ms co nti nue d to m ount , how ev er , pr om pti ng D r. G ic hon an d S ha de to onc e ag ai n ap pr oa chRe ily

se ek ing he lp i n June of

199 7, w he n th e thr ee be gan to dis cu ss the poss ibilityof selling the assist ed living fac ilities. T hereaf ter, Reily approachedDuringoral a rgument, many

questions were raised c oncer ning the source of the funds f or 1 the $100,000 transf

er. Whateve r the a

nswer to this question may be, we do not think itbear s upon our appr oach to r esolution of this case. 4 H ea lthCare RE IT , w hic h a gr ee d to pur ch as e the f ac ili tie s and l ea se the m

ba ck to Reily on the dual cond ition s that Reily acquire the cor

porate interests of D r. Gich on an d S ha de an d t ha t Dr. Gic ho n g ua ran te e th e n ew fi na nc ia l arran ge m en t. D r. G ic hon an d S ha de a gr ee d to the se te rm s inN ove m be r of 199 7, and i n D ec em be r, Re ily f orm ed ac or por at ion , P re m ie r. T hr ough out it s e xis te nc e, Re ily w as P re m ie r’ s so le share hol de r an d of fi ce r. P re m ie r en te re d in to an a gr ee m en t w ithH ea lthCare RE IT r es tr uc tur ing int o ane wf

inanc ia l arr an ge m en t i ts m ortgage loans secured by the living fac ilities. U nder this agreem ent, H ealth Care RE IT too k ti tle to the f

ac ili tie s and g rante d P re m ie r a le as e fo r the m and a w orkin g capital loan of approxim ately $2.248 m illion to acquire cer tain shareholder interests, to pay

Dr . G ichon th e balance on his outst anding loans and to p ay off oth er c re dit or s. I t w as ac ondi tio n of H eath C ar e RE IT ’ s pe rf

orm an ce und er

the ag reem en t t ha t Re il y

ho ldth e so le sh areh ol de r in te res t i n t he de bt orco rp or at io ns . On Fe bruary

11, 1998, the deal closed, and Gichon and Shade form ally turned ove r the ir int er es ts t o R ei ly

and H ea lthCare RE IT . A t c los ing , D r. G ic hon re ce ive d f ro m the c or por at e de bto rs sli ght ly

ove r $700 , 000, of

w hic h $1 00, 000 re pr es en te d paym en t f

or his sto ck in the se c or

por at e de bto rs . 1The trustee voluntarily dismiss ed the c laims ag ainst Shade, who ha d passed a way in the 2 int e ri m. 5 Af ter the closing, the assisted livin g facilities w ere operated and m anaged ex cl us iv el y

by Prem ie r un de r th e le as e arra ng em en t fo r ap pr ox im at el y on e y ear. In ear ly 1999 , P rem ier assigned the leases from He alth Care RE IT to another en tity , A ssi ste d H ea lthV en tur es H old ing s, I nc . T his tr an sa ct ionr el ie ve d G ic hon an d S ha de of

the ir pe rs ona l gu ar an te es und er take n a t the F eb ru ar

y 199 8 c los ing an d n et te d P rem ie r ov er $ 30 0,0 00 . U nf ortun at el y , how ev er , the w orkin g c ap ita l l oan w as not suf fi ci en t t o ex tin gui sh a ll cr ed ito r lia bil iti es , and the de bto r co rp or at ion s, le ft w ith out a sse ts, en te re d bankr

upt cy onl y f ive m onths a ft er

the c los ing . I n Ju ly

of 199 8, the f

ive de bto r co rp or at ion s f

ile d se parate vol unt ar

y pe tit ion s un de r Ch ap te r 7, and the se bankr upt cy c as es w er e co nsol idate d in In re I nte rnat ion al M

anagem en t Associates . T he re af

te r, the T ru ste e in B an kr

upt cy , S one et

R. K ap ila , f

ile d su it ag ai nst P re m ie r an d a ga ins t D r. G ic hon an d R ei ly , w ho w er e ins ide rs of the debtors at all tim es relevant to this proceeding un der 11 U. S. C. § 101 (31)(B) (I) - (i ii) . A m ong oth er

c la im s, the tr

ust ee sou ght

r ec ove ry of a lle ge dly f ra udul en t 2 an d pr ef er en tia l transf

er s m ad e to D r. G ic hon. I n an a tte m pt b y the tr ust ee to pierce P rem ier’ s corporate veil and hold Dr. Gic hon andReily liable for transfers6

of de bto rs ’ a sse ts, the c om

pla int a lso a lle ge d th at

P re m ie r w as ac ont inu at ionof the bus ine ss o f the de bto rs be ca use it w as und er

the c ontro l of

Re ily , w ho w as a lso a share hol de r an d of

fi ce r of the de bto r co rp or at ion s. T houg h D r. G ic hon an d Re ily f ile d answ er s, P re m ie r ne ve r fi le d ar es pons ive ple ad ing . P ur suant t o a default j udgm ent issued agains t Prem ier on January 11, 2001, the bankruptcy court fo und that P re m ie r w as an a lte r eg o of the de bto rs and h el d th at it w as li ab le f

or a ll cl ai m s a ga ins t and l ia

bil iti es of the de bto rs , inc lud ing any f ra udul en t or pr ef er en tia l transf

er s of the de bto rs ’ a sse ts. A t pr oc ee din gs o n January 16 and 1 7, 2002 , the bankruptcy

court rea soned th at the default j udgm ent was binding on Dr . G ic hon an d R ei ly

in al l su bse que nt p ro ce ed ing s si nc e the y ha d kn ow n of

the ch ar ge s a ga ins t P re m ie r but ha d no t de fe nde d a ga ins t the m . T he c ourt a llo w ed the tr ust ee to av oid

a s f ra udul en t the $10 0, 000 tr an sf er w hic h ha d be enm ad e to o bta in D r. G ic hon’ s st oc k inthe de bto rs , and f urthe r he ld tha t the f

unds c oul d be re co ve re d f

ro m D r. G ic hon an d R ei ly

j oin tly and s ev er al ly . A s e xpl ai ne d by the co urt, Re ily

w as the “pr im ar

y be ne fi ci ar

y ” of the tr an sf

er to D r. G ic hon “ as he w ound up w ith100 % of

the sto ck of P re m ie r, a lon g w iththe c ontro l of a ll of the as se ts o f the D eb tor s w ith in h is o w n c los el y he ld c or por at ion , ” an d so w as the

“ entity for whose benefit the transfers w ere m ade pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 550 .” (Ban krup tc y

Op. p . 17 ).7

O n a ppe al , the dis tr ic t c ourt r ev er se d th e bankr upt cy c ourt a s to the li ab ili ty of D r. G ic hon, f

ind ing that he w as not

bound b y

the de fa ult j udgm en t a ga ins t Pr em ie r be ca

use he c oul d no t have c om pe lle d P re m ie r to d ef

en d it se lf a ga ins t the ch ar ge s and thus co uld

not have c ont es te d th e de fa

ult j udgm en t. T ry ing to fo llo w in D r. G ic hon’ s f

oot ste ps, Re ily

a lso sou ght

r el ie f fr om

li ab ili ty on the gr ound s that there w as no allegation th at he had rec eived fraudulent or prefe rential tr an sf er s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef use d to gr an t R ei ly

r el ie f, how ev er , de cl ini ng t o view as c learly

err oneous the bankruptcy court’ s finding that Reily had rece ived the “ be ne fi t” of

c om ple te ow ne rs hip of

the sto ck in the de bto r co rp or at ion s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

urthe r state d th at

unl ike D r. G ic hon, Re ily , a s so le share hol de r an d of fi ce r of P re m ie r, ha d th e ab ili ty

to an sw er

the c om pla int and d ef en d th e sui t on behalf of Pr em ier. W e re vie wthe de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt onthe sam e ba sis that i t re vie w ed the bankr

upt cy c ourt–l eg al de te rm inatio ns de nov o an d f ac tua l f ind ing s fo r cl ear e rro r. G en eral T radi ng, I nc . v . Yale M

ate ria ls H

andl ing Co rp. , 119 F . 3d 14 85 , 14 94 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). II. A. W e m ust f ir st e xa m ine the ba sis upo n w hic h th e tr ust ee se ek s to a voi d th is8

transfer. T he bankruptcy court determ ined that the $1 00,000 transfer to Dr . Gichon wa s avoidable as a frau du le nt tra ns fer u nd er 1 1 U.S.C. § 54 8( a)(1 )(B) . (Bankruptcy

Op. , p. 17). T he e vid en ce in the r ec or d r el ev an t t o th at de te rm inatio n is sparse and there has been little explanation of it bythe parties. Reily argues that th ere h as be en no frau du le nttra ns fer b ut cit es no ev id en ce. U nde r 11 U . S. C. § 54 8( a) (1 )( B) ( 2004 ), atr ust ee in bankr

upt cy m ay a voi d an y tr an sf er m ad e or inc ur re d on e y ear be fo re the da te of f ili ng i f the de bto r

“ re ce ive d le ss than ar ea sona bly e qui va le nt v al ue in ex ch an ge f or suc h tr an sf

er or oblig ation,” and if the debtor w as either insolvent o n the date the transfer wa s m ad e, w as le ft

und er ca pit al iz ed by the tr an sf

er or int en de d to inc ur

f urthe r de bt be y ond its abil ity

to pay . T hus, w ithr es pe ct to a fr au dul en t transf

er , the ly nc hpi n of voi dabil ity

he re is w he the r the re w as le ss than a de quate c onsi de ratio n f or the pr op ert y tra ns ferr ed . T he r ec or d and the opi nio ns b el owte ll us l itt le about the value of the stock, and Reily ’ s argum ent would sugg est that it had sub stantial value. H owever , since the c orporations we re in bankruptcy , w e m ay assum e that Dr . G ichon’s stock wa s worth less than $100 ,000 and in all probabi lity wa s w orthl es s. I n any

e ve nt, no o ne w ill be pr ej udi ce d by a cc ep tin g th is “ w orthl es s” hypo th es is as a work in g a ss um pt io n. B.9

Si nc e the de bto r re ce ive d “ le ss than ar ea sona bly e qui va le nt v al ue in ex ch an ge , ” the tr an sf

er w as f ra udul en t and v oid ab le , and s o r ec ove ry c anbe soug ht f ro m D r. G ic hon, the tr an sf

er ee , but c anit a lso be sou ght

f ro m Re ily on the theory that he wa s a beneficiar

y of the transfer ? The bankruptcy court held that the tr ust ee w as e nti tle d to r ec ove r fr om Re ily pur suant t o 11 U . S. C. § 55 0( a) (1 ) (2 004) , w hic h a llo w s atr ust ee to “ re co ve r, f

or the be ne fi t of

the e state , the pr ope rty tr an sf er re d, or , if the c ourt so or de rs , the va lue of suc h pr ope rty , f

ro m –( 1) the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity for whose benefit such tr ansfer was made . . . . ” (em

ph as is ad de d) . The overarching purpo se of the transaction before us w as to obtain a loan from He althcare RE IT to restructure the f inancing o f the assisted livin g facilities and to prov ide capital for c ontin ued operations. A c ondi tion o f that loan wa s that Re ily be the sol e ow ne r of

the sto ck of the de bto r co rp or at ion s. T he re fo re , the ac qui sit ionof

the sto ck w as in the int er es t of

f urthe ri ng the loan and the restructuring–go als which fulfilled Reily ’ s purpos es. He nce, Reily wa s

“ be ne fi tte d” in a larg er

se nse w he n he obt ai ne d c om ple te c ontro l of

the de bto rs ’ as se ts and the re fo re f

ulf ill ed ane ce ssary

c ondi tio n of

obt ai nin g th e funds fr om He alth Care RE IT . This is the “ benefit” that both th e trustee and the bankruptcy co urt attr ibu te d to Re ily

in or de r to unde rp in l ia

bil ity . ( R. a t 38 9; B an kr . O p. , p.1 0

17) ( statin g th at

Re ily “ w as the pr im ar

y be ne fi ci ar

y of the tr an sf

er s to G ic hon be ca use he w ound

up w ith100 % of

the sto ck of P re m ie r, a lon g w iththe c ontro l of all the assets of the De btors within hi s own closely held corporation.”). H owever , thi s so rt of unquanti fi ab le a dvanta ge is not the sor t of “ be ne fi t” c ont em

plate d by 11 U.S.C. § 5 50 (a). T he para dig m

c as e of abe ne fi t un de r § 55 0( a) is the be ne fi t t o aguaranto r by the pa ym en t o f th e u nd erl y in g d eb t o f th e d eb to r. Se e In re Co ggi n , 30 F . 3d 1443 , 1453 (11th Cir. 1994) (stating that th e phrase “ entity for whose benefit such tr an sf er w as m ad e” “ ty

pic al ly ha s be ene m

plo y ed w he n th e tr

ust ee a tte m

pts to re co ve r fr om

aguaranto r of

an un de rl y ing de bt” ); 5 Collier on Bankrup tcy ¶ 55 0.0 2 [4 ] at55 0- 17 (15 th ed . 19 84 ). Se e als o I n re F inl ey , Ku m ble, e t al . , 130 F. 3d 52 , 57 (2nd Cir. 1997 ) (stating that the phrase “ entity for whose benefit such tr an sf er w as m ad e” “ re fe re nc es e nti tie s th at be ne fi t a s gu ar an tor s of

the de bto r, or oth er w ise , w ith out

e ve r hol din g th e funds. ”) ; In re B onde d F ina nc ial Se rv ic es , Inc. , 285 F . 2d 8 90, 895 ( 7thCi r. 198 8) ( statin g th at “ the para dig m

‘ en tity f or who se be ne fit su ch tra ns fer was m ad e’ is a g ua ran to r orde bt or .”). T he e xa m ple of ade bt and a

guaranto r af

fo rd s so m e ins igh t i nto the int en tio n of

Co ngr es s ine na ct ing § 55 0( a) . T he f ac t tha t R ei ly

a tta ine d c om

ple te co ntr ol o ve r the de bto rs ’ a sse ts d oe s no t gi ve r ise to a quanti fi ab le be ne fi t or oneWhil e Mack was de cided unde r the B ankruptc y Act and not the B ankruptc y Code, we 3 nonetheless f

ind its l anguag e appr opriate to the f acts of this ca se. 1 1 be ar ing the “ ne ce ssary

c or re spon de nc e to the va lue of the pr ope rty

tr an sf er re d or rece ived.” M

ac k v. Ne wton , 737 F . 2d 1 343, 135 9- 60 ( 5thCi r. 198 4) . T he 3 im m ed ia te f ac ts h er e ar e that de bto r co rp or at ion s pa id $ 100, 000 fo r sto ck w orth less than $1 00,000 (and that was probably worth nothing ). T here is no direct be ne fi t t o R ei ly

in a tr an sa ct ionthat r ed

uc ed the a sse ts unde r his c ontro l by $100 , 000 but

inc re as ed

to anunquanti fi ab le e xte nt the c onc en tr at ionof his c ontro l or ow ne rs hip of

that sh runke n a sse t ba se . T he onl y “ be ne fi t” c ite d by

the bankr upt cy c ourt w as the w inn ing of 100 % c ontro l ov er

de ple te d a sse ts. T his is no t a t an gi bl e o r a qua nt ifi ab le be ne fit . Se e id. (r ej ec t i n g as t o o b ro adth e t ru s t ee ’s al le gatio n th at

the pr inc ipa ls i n apartne rs hip ha d r ec ei ve d an in ci de nta l be ne fi t from auctioning off cattle and usin g the proceeds to operate their dairy enterprise, de em ing thi s “ aninc ide nta l, unquanti fi ab le , and r em ote be ne fi t be ar ing no ne ces sa ry co rres po nd en ce t o t he va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty tran sf erre d o r rec ei ve d.” ). E ve n a s am atte r of

ari thm et ic , the tr an sf

er he re de ple te d and d id n ot a ugm en t the as se ts o f de bto rs c ontro lle d by Re ily . T he f

ac t tha t R ei ly

ga ine d e xc lus ive c ontro l of a sm al le r po ol of a ss et s d oe s n ot , on th e fac ts be fo re u s, wei gh in th e b al an ce. T he ve ry f ac t tha t the bankr

upt cy e state r ec ei ve d “ le ss than ar ea sona bly1 2

equiv al en t va lue in ex ch an ge ” fo r the $10 0, 000 (t o qu al if y the tr an sf

er a s vo ida ble un de r 11 U.S.C. § 5 50 (a) wo ul d d ep riv e Rei ly of an y ne t b en efi t i n t he tra ns fer. T hus, Re ily ’ s lo ss w as $10 0, 000 fr om the a sse ts s ubj ec t t o hi s c ontro l, w hil e his onl y ga in w as the va lue of

the sto ck giv ing him

100 % c ontro l, w hic h, in or de r fo r the tr an sf er to be voi dable , w as w orth l es s th an$10 0, 000 . T h i s c a s e i s i mme d i a t e l y d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m In re B.S. Liv in gs to n & Co ., Inc. , 186 B. R. 841 (D. N. J. 1995), in w hich the defendants were benefitted when the y sol d th e co re of

the de bto r’ s bu sin es s to athi rd party in ex ch an ge f

or luc rativ e posi tio ns i n th e ne wc om pany . A lth ough Li vi ngston m ay present a “benefit” that is on th e far edge of qualification under 11 U.S.C. § 550 (a) , there is no obvious viol ence to t he langua g e in s tatin gthat the be ne fi t of a luc rativ e posi tio n, li ke the be ne fi t expe ri en ce d by

aguaranto r, m ay

be c onsi de re d di re ct , a sc er ta ina ble and qu an ti fiabl e, un li ke th e “ be ne fit ” at tri bu te d t o R ei ly. C. Although strict equity

m ay not be part of the test under the Bankruptcy Co de , our appr oa chis som ewha t stre ngthe ne d by the appare ntl y

ine qui ta ble co nse que nc es of

unw ind ing thi s tr an sf

er a t the e xpe nse of

Re ily . U nde r the bankr upt cy c ourt’ s a ppare nt d isp osi tio n, if

the tr an sa ct ionis nul lif

ie d and the $100 ,000 is recovered f

rom Reily , D r. Gic hon wouldpresum ably rec over his stockSuch authority would not stem from the trustee ’s avoidanc e powe rs, for a voidance of a 4 transac tion merely

nullifies it, meaning that “the tra nsfer is retroa ctively

ineffe ctive and the transfe ree leg ally

acquir ed nothingthroug h it.” In re Pe arson Indus., Inc., 178 B.R. 753, 759 (B ankr. C.D. I ll. 1995) (interna l refe renc es omitted). See also In reAllied Companies, Inc. , 155 B .R. 73 9, 74 4 ( B ank

r. S.D . Ind . 1 99 2) (s tatin gtha t th e avo ida

nc e of a tr ans fe r r e late s b a c k to befor e the ba

nkruptcy was filed, de emingthe obliga tion unpaid as of the pe tition date). Nor c an we f ind support for any

theory of re cover

y under which prope rties exchang ed would not be returne d to their orig inal source s. The text of 11 U.S.C. § 550(a)(1) is silent as to whe ther, if a transfe r is avoided a

nd rec overy

is ordere d, the par

ties to the transfe r g et bac k the prope rty that they orig inally

possessed, although this result ordinarily follows from a r escission. 1 3 int er es t i n th e de bto r an d th e co ndi tio ns o f H ea lthCare RE IT ’ s lo anw oul d no t be m et. This w ouldleave Re ily out $1 00,000 with not hing to show for it. Ther e se em s to be no a

uth or ity und er 11 U . S. C. § 55 0( a) (1 ) fo r pur sui ng an a lte rn at ive co ur se of unw ind ing , suc h a s r ec ove ri ng the $10 0, 000 fr om Re ily and r et ur nin g the sto ck to D r. G ic hon. T he r es ult of suc h ar es huf

fl e w oul d be the sam e as if 4 Reily had paid Dr. Gic hon $ 100,000 directly for the stock and thereby achieved 100% c ontro l. Whe the r Re ily pos se sse d $1 00, 000 av ai la ble f or thi s purp ose is unkn own. But, howe ver one m ight judge the equity , R eily would have rece ived som ethin g f

or his $10 0, 000. A s it

stands, the bankr

upt cy c ourt’ s a sse ssm en t of liabilityagainst Reily

seem s to m ake possib le an unbalanced outcom e, for D r. G ic hon m ay

sti ll re ta in the $10 0, 000, w hil e Re ily ’ s st oc k in te re st i s un af fe ct ed , al th ou gh he ha s co nt rib ut ed$1 00 ,00 0 t o t he ba nk rupt cy est at e. III . Since the “benefit” to Reily here is unquantifiable and, in the words of Mack1 4

v. Ne wton , supra , be ar s “ no n ec es sary c or re spon de nc e to the va lue of the pr ope rty tra ns ferr edor r ecei ve d,” th is is no t a “ be ne fit ” co gn iz ab le un de r 11 U.S.C. § 550( a) (1 ). W e the re fo re RE V E RS E the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt and REMAND th is cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on .1 5