Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
"Common sense is not so common," said Voltaire in 1764. But our appellate courts continue to use common sense when disposing of constructively fraudulent transfer appeals, as recent decisions show. See, e.g., In re International Supply Co., 2024 WL 2813849 (7th Cir. June 3, 2024); ("[A] balance sheet can convey an unrealistic picture of a firm's finances"; rejected lender's argument that "sole legally permissible approach to defining solvency is the balance-sheet test"); In re Wade Park Land Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 3024648, *4 (2d Cir. June 17, 2024)("[T]he district court correctly concluded that the values stated … in the appraisals were not plausible when viewed in light of other allegations in the complaint — in particular the conduct of the parties and the inability [of the debtors' principal] to refinance [the debtor's property]."); In re The Mall at the Galaxy, Inc., 2024 WL 3688721 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2024) (debtor received no value from insider loan and pre-bankruptcy payment constructively fraudulent; multiple transactions collapsed; pre-judgment interest awarded on pre-bankruptcy loan repayment because defendant "able to use" funds "for over a decade."); and In re White, 2024 WL 689232 (10th Cir. BAP Feb. 21, 2024) ("a true dollar-for-dollar exchange … almost always constitutes reasonably equivalent value").
"Constructive fraud", in contrast to actual fraud ("actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud"), is probably the most frequently alleged in the fraudulent transfer context. A plaintiff bankruptcy trustee or creditor in a constructive fraudulent transfer suit need only prove with objective evidence (e.g., documents): a) the debtor's insolvency and b) the debtor's receipt of less than "reasonably equivalent value" in exchange for the debtor's assets. See, e.g., Donnell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2008) (investor in debtor's Ponzi scheme liable for profits over amount of initial outlay; no reasonably equivalent value given in exchange).The recent cases cited above show how counsel on both sides of the litigation have avoided reality, either with weak evidence, with overzealous advocacy, or with transparent pre-bankruptcy transaction structuring.
Bankruptcy Code
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.