Opinion ID: 2785010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Reasonably Equivalent Value

Text: Perhaps the most salient fact here is Polaroid received no value in exchange for the TSA. See Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(8) (“In determining actual intent . . . consideration may be given . . . to whether . . . the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred.”). “‘The fact that valuable property has been gratuitously transferred raises a presumption that such transfer was accompanied by the actual fraudulent intent necessary to bar a discharge under clause (4).’” In re Bateman, 646 F.2d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 1981) (internal marks omitted) (quoting 1A Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 14.47 (14th ed. 1978) and applying 11 U.S.C. § 32(c)(4) (1976) (repealed Oct. 1, 1979), which read, “The court shall grant the discharge unless satisfied that the bankrupt has . . . transferred . . . any of his property[] with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors” (emphasis added)). Polaroid was not a party to the Ritchie loans and received no money from the loans, and Petters executed the TSA to prevent a PGW default. The TSA encumbered Polaroid’s valuable trademarks without bestowing any real benefit on Polaroid. Ritchie argues Polaroid received value in the form of its parent company—PGW—staying viable after PGW was delinquent on the loans. However, the viability of a parent company is not the type of value contemplated by the fraudulent transfer laws. See Minn. Stat. § 513.43(a) (“Value is given for a transfer . . . if, in exchange for the transfer . . . , property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s business to furnish support to the debtor or another person.”); see also, e.g., Stoebner v. Lingenfelter, 115 F.3d 576, 577-79 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirming a jury’s finding that a corporation received no value for payments made on behalf of another corporation, when the two corporations were owned by the same individual). -10-