Source: http://splitcircuits.blogspot.com/2006/08/sd-ohio-bankruptcy-court-discusses.html
Timestamp: 2016-02-13 23:32:27
Document Index: 579174893

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 548', '§ 548', '§ 548', '§ 548', '§ 1983', '§ 1396']

Split Circuits: S.D. Ohio Bankruptcy Court Discusses Split Re Standard of Proving Fraudulent Transfer under Section 548(a)(1)(A) of Bankruptcy Code
S.D. Ohio Bankruptcy Court Discusses Split Re Standard of Proving Fraudulent Transfer under Section 548(a)(1)(A) of Bankruptcy Code
Per In re Canyon Systems Corp., Not Reported in B.R., 343 B.R. 615 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2006):Courts are split as to the standard of proof a bankruptcy trustee must meet in an action to avoid a transfer under § 548(a)(1)(A) of the Code. Compare Silagy v. Gagnon (In re Gabor), 280 B.R. 149, 155 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2002) (trustee must meet preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in actual fraudulent transfer action); Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Hamilton Bank, N.A. (In re Model Imperial, Inc.), 250 B.R. 776, 790-91 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2000) (same) and Breeden v. L.I. Bridge Fund, LLC (In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.), 232 B.R. 565, 570 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1999) (same) with Morse Operations, Inc. v. Goodway Graphics of Virginia, Inc. (In re Lease-A-Fleet, Inc.), 155 B.R. 666, 674 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1993) (clear-and-convincing standard applies in § 548(a)(1)(A) cases) and Bumgardner v. Ross (In re Ste. Jan-Marie, Inc.), 151 B.R. 984, 987 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1993) (same). See also Taylor v. Rupp (In re Taylor), 133 F.3d 1336, 1338 (10th Cir.1998) (noting the split of authority); David B. Young, Preferences and Fraudulent Transfers, 876 PLI/Comm 667, 803-04 (2005) (“The strong current of opinion now holds that actual intent under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence···· A minority of courts, however, have continued to adhere to the clear and convincing standard in Section 548(a)(1)(A) cases.”). Here, it is not necessary to determine whether the preponderance or clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden applies in the context of a § 548(a)(1)(A) case because, as discussed above, the Trustee has established the existence of a Ponzi scheme, and thus actual intent to defraud, by clear and convincing evidence. posted by A. Benjamin Spencer @ 6:46 AM 3 comments
Steve Jakubowski said...
Just posted a follow up to your post. Keep up the great work! Here's the link:http://www.bankruptcylitigationblog.com/archives/circuit-splits-proving-an-intentional-fraudulent-transfer-under-the-bankruptcy-code-and-the-ufta-a-clear-and-convincing-prepondance-of-uncertainty.html
Ted Connolly is a lawyer in the Boston office of a large, international law firm, where he concentrates his legal practice in bankruptcy and finance law. florida bankruptcy
How does this still happen? I would like to think that America is the best the country in the world and that corruption should not occur. I just do not like to see corruption in the government that I love. http://www.bankruptcybodyguard.com Post a Comment
Second Circuit Creates Split Re Whether Appellate ...
1st Circuit Discusses Split Re Whether Transition ...
D.C. Circuit Notes Split Re Probationary Internet ...
D.N.J. Considers Whether § 1983 Establishes a Caus...
Ninth Circuit Acknowledges Split Re Availability o...
Third Circuit Notes Split Re Application of FRCP 5...
Sixth Circuit Widens Split Re Whether § 1396a(a)(3...
N.D. Cal. Notes Split Re Whether a Plaintiff May R...
Eleventh Circuit Widens Split Re What Qualifies as...
D. Colo. Notes Split Re Whether Enforcement of a F...