Insights
Publications

California’s New Voidable Transactions Act

9/8/2015 Articles

California’s recently enacted  Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), makes it easier for creditors to recover assets that are transferred to third parties when a debtor is insolvent, even when there is no improper intent by the debtor or the transferee. 

The UVTA supersedes the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (California Civil Code Sections 3439 et seq.) (UFTA). The UVTA applies to transfers made or obligations incurred after January 1, 2016 (the UFTA will continue to apply to prior transactions). Key changes from the UFTA include:

  • Challenging a transfer will be easier for a creditor: the creditor only needs to establish its claim by a “preponderance” of the evidence, rather than the higher “clear and convincing” evidence standard applied by some courts under the UFTA. Moreover, a party defending a claim now clearly has the burden of: (i) rebutting the presumption that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer based on failure to pay debts as they came due and (ii) asserting that property was transferred for a reasonably equivalent value and in good faith. These procedural changes may sound technical, but they tilt the scales in favor of the creditor.
  • A creditor asserting a UVTA claim now has additional remedies, including obtaining pre-judgment “attachment” of a transferee’s assets generally, rather than such attachment being limited to the asset transferred or its proceeds, as is the case under the UFTA. This will put additional pressure on a transferee to settle.

The name change itself (from Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to Uniform Voidable Transactions Act) emphasizes that the law is focused on avoidance of transfers made or of obligations incurred by an insolvent debtor in exchange for less than reasonably equivalent value, regardless of actual fraud or improper intent. 

A claim under the UVTA is now governed by the law of the state where the debtor is “located” at the time the transfer is made or the obligation is incurred. For an individual, this is the individual's principal residence; for an organization, this is the organization's place of business, or its chief executive office if it has multiple places of business. This change is designed to reduce uncertainty regarding the law applicable to a claim, which can be critical because states have adopted non-uniform versions of the UFTA and UVTA. Defendants have often used uncertainty regarding which version of the UFTA to apply as a tool to hinder creditor claims.

Navigating a claim under UFTA and the new UVTA can be tricky, the more so now as the law evolves to focus on technical rules that might not appear obviously. The advice of legal counsel with appropriate experience will be critical to pursuing or defending such litigation.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Corporate Transparency Act: State of the Law and Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements

Key Points: Despite ongoing legal challenges, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) generally remains in effect and enforceable. Clients should continue to abide by its regulations. Initial reports for entities formed in 2024 are due within...

Read More
Publication

What Nonprofit Leaders Need To Know About the Corporate Transparency Act

Welcome to  EO Radio Show – Your Nonprofit Legal Resource. I'm Cynthia Rowland, and today on EO Radio Show , we are discussing a new law that will have implications for many nonprofit organizations...

Read More
Publication

Corporate Transparency Act: A Guide on Beneficial Ownership for Nonprofit Executives

The Corporate Transparency Act, enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, represents a significant shift in regulatory requirements for entities across the United States. This act, set to...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Corporate Transparency Act Imposes New Disclosure Obligations on Business Entities Effective January 1, 2024

Corporate Transparency Act Guide - PDF If you own an interest of 25% or more in any business entity or have any substantial control over any business entity (including as a manager or senior...

Read More
Publication

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. , Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and...

Read More
News

North Coast Industry Insiders Weigh In on Why California Cannabis Tax Revenue Slipped in 2023

Jeff Hamilton spoke to Susan Wood with the North Bay Business Journal for the article "North Coast Industry Insiders Weigh In on Why California Cannabis Tax Revenue Slipped in 2023." Read the article with Jeff's...

Read More
Publication

Life Is Too Short for Bad Wine Distribution Agreements: 10 Key Considerations

If you are like most wine brands, DTC through your tasting room, club, and website can only take you so far. Success usually means accessing the general on- and off-premise markets, and accessing those...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More