This has led to great diversity and confusion of opinions, ranging from the law of the jurisdiction where property is located to the jurisdiction of the transferor and even the jurisdiction of the creditor. In the absence of a uniform provision, the courts have applied various rules to determine which jurisdictions fraudulent transfer law should apply in any given case. Choice of Law: Similarly, to date, there has been no codification or uniformity in the choice of law applied to claims for fraudulent transfers.This revision was made, in part, to set the record straight and reject any argument that a heightened standard such as "clear and convincing evidence" (traditionally associated with fraud claims) would be required under the Act. Regardless of whether the party is asserting a claim or defense, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence," which is typical in civil cases generally. It is now clear that a party making a claim or asserting a defense has the burden of proving those claims. Standards and Burdens of Proof: Until now, there has been no uniform rule with respect to the standards and burdens of proof under the Act.Under the UVTA, those assets and liabilities are no longer considered when determining a partnership’s solvency. Previously, the assets and liabilities of each partner were considered when determining whether a partnership is insolvent. Second, the definition of insolvency with respect to partnerships was changed. First, debts that are subject to a bona fide dispute are no longer considered in the liability calculation. Two changes have been made to the concept of insolvency under Section 2 of the Act. Generally speaking, a debtor is insolvent if its liabilities exceed its assets. Changes to the Definition of "Insolvency": The debtor's solvency, or rather, insolvency, is a critical component of a claim under the Act.However, a showing of "fraud" in the traditional sense has never been a requirement under the Act. ![]() ![]() Claims under the Act have become commonly referred to as those for "actual fraud" ( i.e., transfers made or obligations incurred with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors) and "constructive fraud" ( i.e., transfers made or obligations incurred without reasonably equivalent value). This change was made primarily to clarify confusion about the Act’s requirements.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |