Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

BankruptcyFeaturesLJN NewslettersThe Bankruptcy Strategist

Hiding Assets in California

By David Goodrich
June 02, 2017

The vicissitudes of consumer fortune appear to have led to the “asset protection” industry. A cursory Internet search of the phrase, “asset protection” produces pages of advice for “protecting” assets from creditors and, ostensibly, from bankruptcy trustees. Often, asset protection advice is bereft of any discussion of California exemption statutes — which often provide the most efficient and safest asset protection — and fails to admonish the unwary of powerful creditor rights. Most asset protection discussion forums ignore the consequences of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing should asset protection counter-measures be deployed in response to a creditor's asset-hungry appetite. Ironically, some asset protection tools leave assets completely naked, and strip them of any protection afforded under exemption statutes.

As a preliminary matter, it may be useful to understand a common pitfall of most asset protection tools used in California. If a transfer of property of a debtor is actually or constructively fraudulent, it is recoverable by a bankruptcy trustee if made within two years of a bankruptcy filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548, or within four years of a bankruptcy filing under California Civil Code (Cal. Civ. Code) §§ 3439.04 or 3439.05. If, however, the debtor owes the IRS back taxes, the reach-back period for a bankruptcy trustee could be 10 years depending on the length of delinquency to the IRS. Mukamal v. Citibank NA (In re Kipnis), 16-1045 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2016)

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.