![]() The court also held that the transferee has the burden of proof in establishing its good faith. ![]() The court emphasized that the transferee was not subject to inquiry notice of facts that would have given it knowledge of the fraudulent intent. ![]() The court held that the good faith defense is not available if the transferee had fraudulent intent, colluded with a person who was engaged in the fraudulent conveyance, actively participated in the fraudulent conveyance, or had actual knowledge of facts showing its knowledge of the transferor’s fraudulent intent. Yang, _ Cal.App.4th _ (2017) – The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the predecessor to the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act) allows a transferee to avoid liability if it can establish that it acted in good faith. The Act preempts a state law that allows a debtor to disclaim an inheritance and thereby place the property to be inherited beyond the reach of the government. That provision authorizes the federal government to void a “fraudulent transfer” by a debtor owing a debt to the United States. 2017) – The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act has a fraudulent transfer provision. – United States Small Business Administration v. Moreover, the secured party took free as a transferee of money. ![]() Even if the transfer of funds to the debtor was a constructive or intentionally fraudulent transfer, the secured party was a good faith subsequent transferee that gave value, and hence had a valid defense. There was no basis for a claim of constructive trust because the secured party was not unjustly enriched by the repayment of a debt. 2017) – A secured party that received payment from the debtor after the debtor had received funds from a related entity had no liability to a creditor of the related entity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |