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

Three Steps Licensees Can Take to Protect Their IP Rights in Bankruptcy

During periods of widespread economic disruption such as the present, operating businesses must be able to identify and respond to threats to the financial health of their contracting counterparts in order to protect key...

Read More
News

Lawyers Advising California’s Wineries Navigate a Pandemic and Wildfires

Partners Tyler Gerking and Matt Lewis were interviewed in the Daily Journal article "Lawyers advising California’s wineries navigate a pandemic and wildfires."

Read More
Publication

Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreements for Utility-Scale Battery Projects

The negotiation of an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) agreement for a battery energy storage systems (BESS) project typically surfaces many of the same contractual risk allocation issues that one encounters in the negotiation...

Read More
Publication

SEC Expands Definition of “Accredited Investor” – Here Are 5 Key Takeaways

The SEC recently adopted amendments to Rule 501(a) of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 that expand the definition of “accredited investor” by adding new categories of eligibility based on professional knowledge...

Read More
News

Election Brings Questions for Cannabis SPACs

Drew Goodwin commented in The Deal article "Election Brings Questions for Cannabis SPACs."

Read More
Publication

M&A Deals and PPP Loans: Unexpected Parties in Your Deal

The Payroll Protection Program has been a lifesaver to many businesses this year, but its quick roll out, and many generous features (including potential forgiveness) could tempt a borrower to treat the PPP as...

Read More
Event

ACGSF: The Facts on SPACs

Drew Goodwin is a panelist at the ACG San Francisco live webinar, "The Facts on SPACs." Details: Join us for a discussion on special purpose acquisition companies. How are they raised, who invests; how...

Read More
Publication

Hospitality Companies and Their Lenders: Preparing for Difficult Conversations

In a sudden reversal of generally expansionary trends, the hospitality business has been among the most immediate and badly hit economic sectors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting stay-at-home and...

Read More
News

Alexis Sinclair Joins Farella Braun + Martel’s Financial Services Industry Group

SAN FRANCISCO, October 14, 2020: Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce that business transactions lawyer Alexis Sinclair has joined the firm as special counsel in its Financial Services...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More