First Interstate Bank of Utah, N.A. v. Internal Revenue Service, and Olympus Glass Company, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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 bank loaned money to a contractor to perform pre-existing contracts. The court held the bank’s security interest in the resulting accounts receivable was not a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI), and thus did not have priority over a previously filed federal tax lien.
Legal Significance: This case narrowly construes the definition of a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI), establishing that funds advanced to enable a debtor to perform pre-existing contracts, thereby generating accounts, do not create a PMSI in those accounts receivable.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Olympus Glass Company had several pre-existing glazing contracts. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed a federal tax lien against all of Olympus’s property for unpaid taxes. Subsequently, First Interstate Bank of Utah extended a new line of credit to Olympus, specifically to fund the labor and material costs necessary to complete six of these contracts. The bank’s advances were paid directly to third-party suppliers. The loan agreement stated it was secured by the ‘specifically assigned contracts.’ When Olympus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a priority dispute arose between the bank and the IRS over the accounts receivable generated from the performance of the six contracts. The bank asserted that its security interest was a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) under Utah’s version of U.C.C. § 9-107(b), which should take priority over the pre-existing IRS tax lien. The IRS contended that the funds were merely for general business operations (contract performance) and did not enable Olympus to acquire a new asset, thus precluding PMSI status. The bankruptcy and district courts ruled in favor of the IRS.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a lender who advances funds to enable a debtor to perform pre-existing executory contracts, thereby generating accounts receivable, acquire a purchase money security interest in those accounts under U.C.C. § 9-107(b)?
No, the bank did not obtain a purchase money security interest. The 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 volup
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a lender who advances funds to enable a debtor to perform pre-existing executory contracts, thereby generating accounts receivable, acquire a purchase money security interest in those accounts under U.C.C. § 9-107(b)?
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of the PMSI, clarifying that financing 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 nostr
Legal Rule
Under Utah Code Ann. § 70A-9-107(b), a security interest qualifies as a 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the precise language of U.C.C. § 9-107(b), 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 pari
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A loan to fund a debtor’s performance of a pre-existing contract