Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CLC received was not reasonably equivalent to the value of the dividend, 740 ILCS 160(5)(b)(8) (2002); and (3) CLC was insolvent when the dividend was paid, 740 ILCS 160(5)(b)(9) (2002). The Trust contends fraud can be inferred from these three badges. But in fact only two of the badges are present. First, no reasonably equivalent value was given for the dividend. There is no “reasonably equivalent value” when the consideration for a transfer is either inadequate or nonexistent. Leibowitz v. Parkway Bank & Trust Co. (In re Image Worldwide, Ltd.), 139 F.3d 574, 577 (7th Cir.1998). The dividend here was a unilateral transfer of $30,748, and no evidence has been offered that anything was given in return. See Fisher v. Hamilton (In re Teknek, LLC), 343 B.R. 850, 861 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2006) (<HOLDING>). Second, it is undisputed that CLC was 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that dividend paid to llc members was not a transfer for reasonably equivalent value (B) holding transfer of capital accounts from a limited partnership to a llc was valuable consideration for purposes of imposing state real estate transfer fee because the members received new rights and privileges (C) holding that it is not a collusive transaction when valuable consideration is paid to transfer a debt to a bona fide purchaser even if the transfer was for the purpose of invoking diversity jurisdiction (D) holding that transfer of property to llc involved no consideration for state conveyance tax purposes because it was a unilateral act and not the result of a bargainedfor exchange (E) holding transfer of legal title to property as a capital contribution to llc was in exchange for valuable consideration and constituted a sale of the property
Output (English): holding that it is not a collusive transaction when valuable consideration is paid to transfer a debt to a bona fide purchaser even if the transfer was for the purpose of invoking diversity jurisdiction