Avoidance Powers and Fraudulent Transfers under Bankruptcy Law
Avoidance Powers and Fraudulent Transfers under Bankruptcy Law
Overview
Avoidance Powers are special authorities granted to a bankruptcy trustee to undo certain transactions made by the debtor before the bankruptcy filing. These powers help recover assets that were improperly transferred away from the debtor, ensuring equitable treatment of creditors.
A key focus is on Fraudulent Transfers, which are transactions made by the debtor to defraud, delay, or hinder creditors.
1. Avoidance Powers
Purpose: To prevent debtors from unfairly placing assets beyond the reach of creditors shortly before filing for bankruptcy.
Who exercises these powers?: The bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession.
Common Avoidance Actions:
Avoiding preferential transfers.
Avoiding fraudulent conveyances.
Avoiding unauthorized liens or sales.
2. Fraudulent Transfers (or Fraudulent Conveyances)
Definition: Transfers of property made by a debtor with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or for which the debtor receives less than reasonably equivalent value while insolvent.
Types of Fraudulent Transfers
Actual Fraud: Transfer made with the intent to defraud creditors.
Constructive Fraud: Transfer made without receiving reasonably equivalent value while the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result.
Legal Framework
Bankruptcy laws provide statutory provisions allowing trustees to avoid (set aside) fraudulent transfers.
Such transfers are undone, and the property is brought back into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to creditors.
Elements of Fraudulent Transfer
Transfer of an asset.
Debtor’s insolvency at the time or insolvency resulting from the transfer.
Intent to defraud creditors (for actual fraud) or lack of reasonable value in exchange (constructive fraud).
Important Case Law
1. Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891)
Facts: A debtor conveyed property to avoid paying creditors.
Issue: Whether a transfer made to defraud creditors can be set aside.
Judgment: The Supreme Court affirmed that fraudulent transfers can be invalidated to protect creditor interests.
Principle: Courts have authority to undo transfers made to hinder creditors.
2. Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48 (1986)
Facts: Transfer of artwork inter vivos where the donor retained possession.
Issue: Whether the transfer was valid or fraudulent.
Judgment: Court held that actual intent must be shown to establish fraud; absence of intent makes the transfer valid.
Principle: Actual fraudulent intent is necessary for a transfer to be avoided on fraud grounds.
3. In re Leavitt, 171 B.R. 497 (9th Cir. BAP 1994)
Facts: Debtor transferred assets before bankruptcy without receiving fair value.
Issue: Whether transfer was constructively fraudulent.
Judgment: The court ruled that constructive fraud exists when transfer is for less than reasonably equivalent value and debtor is insolvent.
Principle: Constructive fraud does not require intent but depends on insolvency and inadequate consideration.
Preference vs. Fraudulent Transfer
Preference: Transfer to a creditor that favors one creditor over others shortly before bankruptcy. Must be avoided if within statutory period.
Fraudulent Transfer: Transfer intended to defraud or without value.
Trustee’s Powers and Remedies
Trustee can file avoidance actions to recover assets.
Recovered assets go back into the bankruptcy estate.
Creditors benefit by having increased assets for equitable distribution.
Practical Implications
Debtors must avoid suspicious transfers before bankruptcy.
Creditors and trustees can scrutinize transactions up to a certain “look-back” period.
Courts assess intent, value exchanged, and insolvency status.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Avoidance Powers | Trustee’s right to undo improper pre-bankruptcy transactions. |
| Fraudulent Transfer | Transfers made to defraud creditors or without fair value. |
| Actual Fraud | Intentional transfer to hinder creditors. |
| Constructive Fraud | Transfer without fair value while insolvent, regardless of intent. |
| Key Cases | Marshall v. Holmes, Gruen v. Gruen, In re Leavitt. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments