Not a Fraudulent Transfer...Even With Intent To Defraud?

Geoffrey M. Gold, a Partner in ECJ’s Litigation, Real Estate and Land Use Departments, published an article in the September 16, 2020 issue of the Daily Journal titled, "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 (“UVTA”).  Not anymore. In this article, Geoffrey takes a look at how the recent appellate ruling in Universal Home Improvement, Inc., et al. v. Robertson, et al. may impact the law of voidable transfers and preferences.

Click here to read Geoffrey's full article.