This case arises out of a fraudulent conveyance action. It concerns whether certain real estate located in Ireland was held in trust—a question of fact. Petitioner offered a duly qualified expert under Rule 702 to explain that, consistent with Irish customs and practices, the property was held in trust. The District Court concluded that the complexities involved were well beyond the ken of the average juror. Nonetheless, the court held that Petitioner's expert would not be permitted to explain the relevant customs and practices and offer his opinion on the trust issue because doing so would invade the province of the jury. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Other courts of appeals have recognized that, under Rule 704, this is not a valid reason for excluding expert testimony. The first Question Presented is:

1. Whether expert testimony may be excluded under Rules 702 and 704 because the expert offers an opinion on the relevant question of fact.

This case also involves whether the bankruptcy trustee may avoid the transfer of a second parcel of real estate even though the debtor did not own it. The relevant statute, 11 U.S.C. § 548, permits the avoidance of an interest of "the debtor" in property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's conclusion that the trustee may avoid the transfer. Other courts of appeals have concluded the opposite. The second Question Presented is:

2. Whether a trustee may avoid under 11 U.S.C. § 548 the transfer of property the debtor did not own.

Whether expert testimony may be excluded under Rules 702 and 704 because the expert offers an opinion on the relevant question of fact