Civil Litigation,
California Courts of Appeal
Sep. 16, 2020
Not a fraudulent transfer... even with intent to defraud?
Until a recent appellate ruling, it appeared that, under California law, if a debtor made a transfer without receiving “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange, that transfer, by itself, could be — but need not be — a basis for finding there was “actual fraud” rendering the transfer voidable under the California Uniform Voidable Transfer Act.
Geoffrey M. Gold
Partner
Ervin, Cohen & Jessup LLP
Email: ggold@ecjlaw.com
UC Berkeley SOL; Berkeley CA
Geoffrey specializes in real estate and business litigation.
Until a recent appellate ruling, it appeared that, under California law, if a debtor made a transfer without receiving "reasonably equivalent value" in exchange, that transfer, by itself, could be -- but need not be -- a basis for finding there was "actual fraud" rendering the transfer voidable under the California Uniform Voidable Transfer Act (UVTA).
Not anymore. In $95
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In