Such an actual creditor, Bankers claims, would be able to execute judgment only against account debtors located in Vermont. It is unnecessary for us to consider the validity of Bankers' contention that an actual Vermont judgment lien creditor would be able to recover only against Vermont account debtors, because avoidance and recovery are two separate and distinct issues covered by separate and distinct Code provisions. Bankers' arguments elides the distinction, confusing the trustee's power to avoid transfers of property with the trustee's power to recover the property transferred. Whether Vermont law applies is the central issue to be determined at trial. Bankers' interest in Debtors' accounts receivable arises out of a transfer.
State law defines what is necessary to accomplish that transfer.
It makes no sense to measure the recovery under an avoiding power in terms of a class of creditor which might or might not actually exist. Finally, Bankers misapprehends the law of the case that it has helped create. Plaintiffs contended vigorously that the law of the forum state applies, and transparently brought this action in Vermont seeking to take advantage of the fact that Vermont is the only state which was, at the time in question, still clinging to an older version of the Uniform Commercial Code requiring filing in the Secretary of State's office of the state in which the accounts receivable are located. Although we ruled that the action was lodged here properly, under the doctrine of pendent venue, we have, we hope, made it abundantly clear that we have permitted the proceeding to remain here solely because it is the forum most convenient to the most relevant evidence. The trial itself will be about the ultimate issue of which state's law applies.