Adopting modifications to, and renaming, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

1. If the transfer is made or obligation incurred by the debtor to intentionally hinder, delay, or defraud the creditor.

2. If the debtor transfers property or incurs the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, and the debtor engages in business or a transaction for which the debtor's remaining assets are unreasonably small or the debtor intends to incur debts beyond the debtor's ability to pay as they become due.

3. If there is an existing creditor-debtor relationship, the debtor makes a transfer or incurs an obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. A debtor is insolvent if the sum of the debtor's debts is greater than all of the debtor's assets at a fair valuation. A debtor who is generally not paying debts as they become due is presumed to be insolvent.

4. If the debtor makes a transfer to an insider for a preexisting debt, the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent. “Insider” is a defined term and includes certain relatives of an individual debtor and officers and directors of a corporate debtor.

Current law specifies various remedies available to a creditor if a voidable transaction has occurred. These remedies include the avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim, attachment against the asset transferred or other property of the person to whom the asset was transferred, an injunction, and appointment of a receiver.

The bill adopts the ULC's 2014 modifications to the uniform act, including the following:

1. The bill renames the provisions of the act to be the Uniform Voidable Transactions Law and replaces the term “fraudulent” with “voidable” in various provisions. The ULC specified that these changes were not intended to have substantive effect and were made to more accurately convey the effect of current law, which frequently uses the term “fraudulent” but does not actually require fraudulent activity as a condition to its application.

2. The bill creates provisions that specify, for claims and defenses related to voidable transactions, which party has the burden of proof and establishes the standard of proof as a preponderance of the evidence.

3. The bill creates a choice-of-law rule for courts to determine which state's voidable transactions law applies in a given case. Under the bill, a court must apply the law of the state where the debtor is located at the time the transfer is made or obligation incurred.

4. The bill eliminates a provision that applies a different standard for determining insolvency for a partnership, so that the general insolvency standard applies to partnerships.