• Login
    View Item 
    •   CDR Home
    • Creighton Research and Scholarship including the Faculty Bibliography
    • Faculty Bibliography Database
    • View Item
    •   CDR Home
    • Creighton Research and Scholarship including the Faculty Bibliography
    • Faculty Bibliography Database
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    "Reasonably equivalent value" in § 548 avoidance actions: An analytical framework post-In re TOUSA, Inc.

    Creighton Authors
    Fox, Irina

    Admin. Units
    School of Law

    Subjects
    Bankruptcy

    Title
    "Reasonably equivalent value" in § 548 avoidance actions: An analytical framework post-In re TOUSA, Inc.

    Authors
    Fox, Irina

    Journal
    Norton Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice

    Volume
    20

    Issue
    4

    Pages
    469-510

    Date
    2011

    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Other Link(s)
    Library Catalog SSRN

    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10504/86393
    Citation
    Irina Fox, “Reasonably Equivalent Value” in § 548 Avoidance Actions: An Analytical Framework Post-In re TOUSA, Inc., 20 Norton J. Bankr. L. & Prac. 469 (2011).

    Abstract
    Avoidance powers in bankruptcy are designed to prevent the debtor from fraudulently siphoning away his property on the verge of bankruptcy. Usually, a trustee in bankruptcy can avoid prepetition transfers of the debtor’s interest in property if the transfer was made when the debtor was insolvent or was made insolvent as a result of the transfer. Additionally, the debtor must have received less than reasonably equivalent value in the transaction.

    In a recent opinion, In re TOUSA, Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reversed the bankruptcy court on the issue of transfer avoidance in the context of intracorporate guarantees. The bankruptcy court’s decision, which allowed trustee to recover money received by certain lenders of the debtor, caused a vibrant reaction in the legal community. Analysts noted that “[t]he ruling has been greeted by the lending community and commentators with a mixture of shock, dismay, disbelief, and resignation. If upheld on appeal and followed by other courts, the ruling may have a marked impact on lenders and debtors alike.” The district court reversed the bankruptcy court on every point of its analysis, concluding that the transfer in question was not avoidable. One point of disagreement between the two courts was the application of the concept “reasonably equivalent value” as used in § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code in connection with avoidance of constructively fraudulent transfers. One does not need to review years of often conflicting jurisprudence to immediately realize that the term “reasonably equivalent value” is a murky concept subject to a variety of interpretations.

    As explained in this article, the facts of TOUSA present a great example of how difficult the concept can be when applied by courts attempting to determine whether a given transaction is constructively fraudulent. Although Congress defined “value” in § 548, it failed to provide guidance on how to measure its reasonable equivalence. Perhaps, one reason why no definition was provided by Congress is that the inquiry is inevitably fact-specific. It is impossible to devise a precise formula that will uniformly establish what is and what is not reasonably equivalent, and fair market value, although helpful, is not always the benchmark. However, this Article attempts to propose a clear framework for the analysis of “reasonably equivalent value” as an element of fraudulent conveyance avoidance. The framework incorporates more than thirty years of the most prominent decisions on the issue in the hope of clarifying the issue not only for the courts, but also for legal practitioners and businessmen planning transactions.

    Part II of this Article provides background information on fraudulent conveyances and the term “reasonably equivalent value.” Part III reviews the recent decision in In re TOUSA, highlighting the interpretation and application of the term “reasonably equivalent value” by both bankruptcy and district courts. Part IV outlines an analytical framework, incorporating within this framework the most significant jurisprudence tackling the issue. The Article in Part V once again evaluates the facts of TOUSA through the prism of the proposed framework. Finally, Part VI offers a brief conclusion.
    Collections
    • Current Law Faculty Publications
    • Faculty Bibliography Database

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of the CDRCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV