Pepper v. Litton

Supreme Court of the United States · 1939 · Corporations

308 U.S. 295 (1939)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsBankruptcyFiduciary DutiesEquitable Subordinationequityinsider claimsdominant stockholderfiduciary duty

Facts

Pepper sued Dixie Splint Coal Company for unpaid royalties, and while that suit was pending Litton, the corporation's dominant and controlling stockholder, caused the corporation to confess judgment in his favor for alleged accumulated salary claims dating back years. After Pepper obtained judgment, Litton used his confessed judgment and execution process to acquire most of the corporation's property, transferred that property to another corporation he formed, and caused Dixie Splint to file voluntary bankruptcy so his judgment would consume the remaining assets. The District Court found this was a deliberate fraudulent scheme to avoid payment of Pepper's just debt and also found the alleged salary claims were not an honest debt but merely bookkeeping entries. When Litton submitted his judgment as a claim in bankruptcy, Pepper objected.

Issue

May a bankruptcy court, despite a prior state-court proceeding concerning the judgment, examine the underlying basis of a judgment held by the bankrupt corporation's dominant stockholder and disallow or subordinate that claim as secured or unsecured? More specifically, may the court do so under its equitable powers where the insider used his control and judgment to prefer himself over other creditors through unfair or fraudulent conduct?

Rule

Bankruptcy courts are courts of equity with full power to inquire into the validity of claims asserted against the estate, to look behind a judgment to determine the essential nature of the liability for purposes of proof and allowance, and to disallow or subordinate insider claims according to the equities of the case. Claims of officers, directors, or dominant stockholders are subject to rigorous scrutiny, and the insider bears the burden of proving both good faith and the inherent fairness of the transaction from the viewpoint of the corporation and those interested in it; if the transaction lacks the earmarks of an arm's-length bargain, or if the insider has breached fiduciary duties, manipulated corporate affairs for self-preference, or participated in a fraudulent scheme, equity may disallow or subordinate the claim even though it has been reduced to judgment.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Granite Valley Milling, a closely held company in Boise, enters Chapter 7. Before bankruptcy, its president and 82% shareholder, Nora Keene, obtained a default judgment against the company on an alleged consulting debt and now files that judgment as a secured claim against the estate. Trade creditors object, arguing the debt was created through insider self-dealing.

How should the bankruptcy court most likely respond to Nora's argument that the judgment conclusively establishes her claim?

Explanation. A bankruptcy court sits as a court of equity and has full power to inquire into the validity of claims asserted against the estate. The mere fact that a claim has been reduced to judgment does not prevent the court from looking behind the judgment to determine the essential nature of the liability for proof and allowance. That is especially true when the claimant is a dominant insider.