On April 4, 2020, the State of New York will join ranks with the vast majority of other states implementing a version of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA”). Only Maryland continues to apply the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (the “UFCA”), a law with its origins as early as 1918. A handful of other states that did not adopt the UFCA instead retain their varied, state-specific transfer laws. The uniform legislation was first promulgated in 1984 as an amendment to the UFCA, referred to as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).

Going forward, lenders must take precautionary measures to protect themselves. Anticipating the risk of a U.S. bankruptcy case is a crucial first step.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 29, 2016)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to transfer venue of his chapter 7 bankruptcy case from the Terra Haute Division to the Evansville Division. The debtor failed to satisfy the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1412 for venue transfer. The debtor’s travel time to each court location was virtually the same, and thus Evansville was no more convenient than Terra Haute. Further, there was no showing that the interests of justice would be better served by the transfer. Opinion below.

Judge: Graham

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2016)

(7th Cir. July 28, 2016)

(7th Cir. July 27, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order finding that the debtor’s prepetition transfer of a farm to the defendant was a fraudulent transfer subject to avoidance. The debtor transferred the farm in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to abandon litigation he had brought against the debtor. The bankruptcy court found that the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the farm. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Defendant: Pro Se

Attorney for Trustee: Brenda L. Zeddun

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 8, 2016)

The court overrules the debtor’s ex-spouse’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued her claim could not be discharged because it was a domestic support obligation. However, the court analyzes the divorce decree and determines that the payments ordered were not tied to health or employment prospects or the creditor’s ability to support herself. Under the circumstances, the court concludes the claim is not for a domestic support obligation and may be discharged. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf