Defined ~ Value And Reasonably Equivalent Value

Value REV Definition Mainuvta03value

"VALUE" DEFINED AND REASONABLY EQUIVALENT VALUE (REV)


#definedvalue


UVTA § 3. VALUE.

(a) Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, 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.

(b) For the purposes of Section 4(a)(2) and Section 5, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of the interest of the debtor upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.

(c) A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.

Reporter's Comment to § 3 cmt. 1.
This section defines when "value" is given for a transfer or an obligation. "Value" is used in that sense in various contexts in this Act, frequently with a qualifying adjective. Used in that sense the word appears in the following provisions:
4(a)(2) ("reasonably equivalent value");
4(b)(8) ("value ... reasonably equivalent");
5(a) ("reasonably equivalent value");
8(a) ("reasonably equivalent value");
8(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (d) ("value");
8(f)(1) ("new value"); and
8(f)(3) ("present value").
"Value" is also used in other senses in this Act, to which this section is not relevant. See, e.g., §§ 8(b)(1), 8(c) ("value" in the sense of the value of a transferred asset).

#valueexchange3a


(a) Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, 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.

Reporter's Comment to § 3(a) cmt. 2.
Section 3(a) is adapted from Bankruptcy Code § 548(d)(2)(A) (1984). See also § 3(a) of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act.
The definition in Section 3 is not exclusive.
"Value" is to be determined in light of the purpose of the Act to protect a debtor's estate from being depleted to the prejudice of the debtor's unsecured creditors.
Consideration having no utility from a creditor's viewpoint does not satisfy the statutory definition.
The definition does not specify all the kinds of consideration that do not constitute value for the purposes of this Act—e.g., love and affection. See, e.g., United States v. West, 299 F.Supp. 661, 666 (D.Del. 1969).
Reporter's Comment to § 3(a) cmt. 3.
Section 3(a) does not indicate what is "reasonably equivalent value" for a transfer or obligation.
Under this Act, as under Bankruptcy Code § 548(a)(2) (1984), a transfer for security is ordinarily for a reasonably equivalent value notwithstanding a discrepancy between the value of the asset transferred and the debt secured, because the amount of the debt is the measure of the value of the interest in the asset that is transferred. See, e.g., Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Holy Family Polish Nat'l Catholic Church, Carnegie, Pa., 341 Pa. 390, 19 A.2d 360 (1941).
If the debt is a voidable obligation under this Act, a transfer to secure it as well as the obligation would be vulnerable to attack as voidable.
A transfer to satisfy or secure an antecedent debt owed an insider is also subject to avoidance under the conditions specified in Section 5(b).
Reporter's Comment to § 3(a) cmt. 4.
Section 3(a) of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act has been thought not to recognize that an unperformed promise could constitute fair consideration. See McLaughlin, Application of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 404, 414 (1933).
Courts construing these provisions of the prior law nevertheless have held unperformed promises to constitute value in a variety of circumstances. See, e.g., Harper v. Lloyd's Factors, Inc., 214 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1954) (transfer of money for promise of factor to discount transferor's purchase-money notes given to fur dealer); Schlecht v. Schlecht, 168 Minn. 168, 176-77, 209 N.W. 883, 886-87 (1926) (transfer for promise to make repairs and improvements on transferor's homestead); Farmer's Exchange Bank v. Oneida Motor Truck Co., 202 Wis. 266, 232 N.W. 536 (1930) (transfer in consideration of assumption of certain of transferor's liabilities); see also Hummel v. Cernocky, 161 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1947) (transfer in consideration of cash, assumption of a mortgage, payment of certain debts, and agreement to pay other debts).
Likewise a transfer in consideration of a negotiable note discountable at a commercial bank, or the purchase from an established, solvent institution of an insurance policy, annuity, or contract to provide care and accommodations clearly appears to be for value.
On the other hand, an unperformed promise by an individual to support a parent or other transferor has generally been held not to constitute value. See, e.g., Springfield Ins. Co. v. Fry, 267 F.Supp. 693 (N.D.Okla. 1967); Sandler v. Parlapiano, 236 App.Div. 70, 258 N.Y.Supp. 88 (1st Dep't 1932); Warwick Municipal Employees Credit Union v. Higham, 106 R.I. 363, 259 A.2d 852 (1969); Hulsether v. Sanders, 54 S.D. 412, 223 N.W. 335 (1929); Cooper v. Cooper, 22 Tenn.App. 473, 477, 124 S.W.2d 264, 267 (1939); Note, Rights of Creditors in Property Conveyed in Consideration of Future Support, 45 Iowa L.Rev. 546, 550-62 (1960).
This Act adopts the view taken in the cases cited in determining whether an unperformed promise is value.
JayNote
One of the most important crucial terms in the Act is "reasonably equivalent value", which depends on the definition of value. Value is what is given in exchange for the transfer, and can include satisfaction of an outstanding debt. However, value does not include an unperformed promise.

#revsale3b


(b) For the purposes of Section 4(a)(2) and Section 5, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of the interest of the debtor upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.

Reporter's to § 3(b) cmt. 5 ¶ 1.
Subsection (b) rejects the rule of such cases as Durrett v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 621 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1980) (nonjudicial foreclosure of a mortgage avoided as a voidable transfer when the property of an insolvent mortgagor was sold for less than 70% of its fair value); and Abramson v. Lakewood Bank & Trust Co., 647 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1164 (1982) (nonjudicial foreclosure held to be voidable transfer if made without fair consideration).
Subsection (b) adopts the view taken in Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Madrid (In re Madrid), 21 B.R. 424 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982), aff'd on another ground, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1984), that the price bid at a regularly conducted and noncollusive foreclosure sale determines the fair value of the property sold for purposes of voidable transfer law. See also BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 n.3 (1994) (similarly construing Bankruptcy Code § 548; opinion expressly limited to foreclosure of real estate mortgages).
Reporter's Comment to § 3(b) cmt. 5 ¶ 2.
Subsection (b) prescribes the effect of a sale meeting its requirements, whether the asset sold is personal or real property.
It applies only to a sale under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.
Subsection (b) thus does not apply to a sale foreclosing a nonconsensual lien, such as a tax lien.
However, the subsection does apply to a foreclosure by sale of the interest of a vendee under an installment land contract in accordance with applicable law that requires or permits the foreclosure to be effected by a sale in the same manner as the foreclosure of a mortgage. See G. Osborne, G. Nelson, & D. Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law 83-84, 95-97 (1979).
Reporter's Comment to § 3(b) cmt. 5 ¶ 3.
If a lien given an insider for a present consideration is not perfected as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or is so perfected after a delay following an extension of credit secured by the lien, foreclosure of the lien may result in a transfer for an antecedent debt that is voidable under Section 5(b).
Reporter's Comment to § 3(b) cmt. 5 ¶ 4.
Subsection (b) does not apply to an action under Section 4(a)(1) to avoid a transfer or obligation because made or incurred with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.
JayNote
A transferee who purchased property at a bona fide judicial sale has given reasonably equivalent value, but this rule doesn't apply to a claim arising under the Intent Test of § (4)(a)(1).

#presentvaluecontemporaneous3c


(c) A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.

Reporter's Comment to § 3(c) cmt. 6.
Subsection (c) is an adaptation of Bankruptcy Code § 547(c)(1) (1984).
A transfer to an insider for an antecedent debt may be voidable under § 5(b).
JayNote
The transfer must be contemporaneous, i.e., a transfer from the debtor to the transferee at one time, and a transfer from the transferee to the debtor at another time, is not contemporaneous.

#bankruptcyvalue548d2


BANKRUPTCY CODE § 548(d)(2) [VALUE]

In this section—

(A) "value" means property, or satisfaction or securing of a present or antecedent debt of the debtor, but does not include an unperformed promise to furnish support to the debtor or to a relative of the debtor;

(B) a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or securities clearing agency that receives a margin payment, as defined in section 101, 741, or 761 of this title, or settlement payment, as defined in section 101 or 741 of this title, takes for value to the extent of such payment;

(C) a repo participant or financial participant that receives a margin payment, as defined in section 741 or 761 of this title, or settlement payment, as defined in section 741 of this title, in connection with a repurchase agreement, takes for value to the extent of such payment;

(D) a swap participant or financial participant that receives a transfer in connection with a swap agreement takes for value to the extent of such transfer; and

(E) a master netting agreement participant that receives a transfer in connection with a master netting agreement or any individual contract covered thereby takes for value to the extent of such transfer, except that, with respect to a transfer under any individual contract covered thereby, to the extent that such master netting agreement participant otherwise did not take (or is otherwise not deemed to have taken) such transfer for value.


#rev


REASONABLY EQUIVALENT VALUE ("REV")

Note that Reasonably Equivalent Value, known by the acronym "REV", is not defined by the UVTA/UFTA but instead is defined by decisional law.

Prefatory Note (UFTA 1984).
Reasonably equivalent value is required in order to constitute adequate consideration under the new Act.
The new Act follows the Bankruptcy Code in eliminating good faith on the part of the transferee or obligee as an issue in the determination of whether adequate consideration is given by a transferee or obligee.
The new Act, like the Bankruptcy Code, allows the transferee or obligee to show good faith in defense after a creditor establishes that a fraudulent transfer has been made or a fraudulent obligation has been incurred.
Thus a showing by a defendant that a reasonable equivalent has been given in good faith for a transfer or obligation is a complete defense although the debtor is shown to have intended to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.
JayNote
Reasonably Equivalent Value is defined by the decisional law, but in general has three elements:
First, "value" as defined in § 3 must be present;
Second, the value exchanged must be "equivalent" in that it must have about the same utility to creditors as what the debtor gave up, as measured through the eyes of creditors;
Third, the equivalency of value exchanged must be "reasonable" in both quality and quantity, meaning that the exchange doesn't have to be exactly equal but good enough that a reasonable person would say that it was pretty much a fair exchange under the circumstances.





VALUE ARTICLES

  • 2016.09.30 ... The Silver Lining In The IRS's Proposed Rule Changes For Valuation Discounts

REASONABLY EQUIVALENT VALUE ARTICLES

  • 2020.12.29 ... Debtor’s Transfers From Non-Debtor Limited Partnership Set Aside In Cole
  • 2020.07.30 ... Zambri Zaps Harrah’s Casino For $850,449.06.0 In Fraudulent Transfers Ordered Repaid To Bankruptcy Trustee
  • 2019.08.21 ... Of Jeffrey Epstein And The Assets He Placed Into Trust Two Days Before His Death
  • 2018.08.24 ... Undocumented Loans Easy Fodder For Florida Fraudulent Transfer Claim In Kaplan
  • 2018.08.13 ... Late-Arriving Member To LLC Results In Fraudulent Transfer Finding And Punitive Damages In Lacava
  • 2016.09.30 ... The Silver Lining In The IRS's Proposed Rule Changes For Valuation Discounts
  • 2016.08.22 … Sacred Heart University Dodges Fraudulent Transfer Claim For Tuition Paid In Palladino
  • 2016.07.29 … Blixseth Loses On Marital Settlement Agreement And Fraudulent Transfers
  • 2016.04.07 … The Golf Channel Gets The Answer It Wants From The Texas Supreme Court
  • 2015.11.16 ... Attorney's Fees Deemed To Constitute Reasonably Equivalent Value In Magnum Steel
  • 2015.07.27 ... The Fifth Circuit Declares A Mulligan In The Golf Channel Innocent Transferee Case
  • 2015.03.31 ... The Common But False Myth Of The Asset-For-LLC Interest Exchange In Asset Protection Planning
  • 2015.03.17 ... The Fifth Circuit Slices The Golf Channel Into The Pond
  • 2015.03.14 ... Medici Gambles At The Venetian But It Is The Venetian Who Gets Played
  • 2014.11.01 ... The Insolvent Debtor - Are Charity And Family Gifts Still Possible?
  • 2014.10.09 ... Dilution Of Corporate Stock As A Fraudulent Transfer In Antonello
  • 2013.07.02 ... Bankrupt Milwaukee Archdiocese Apparently Caught In Fraudulent Transfer
  • 2013.03.22 ... What The Debtor Received In Return Is Key To Fraudulent Transfer Value Analysis
  • 2013.01.30 ... Interspousal Transfers Without Value To Avoid Personal Guarantee Voided As Fraudulent Transfers In Lilly
  • 2012.12.31 ... Cohen - Lawyer's Transfer Of Wages To Entireties Account Only Partially Protected From Creditor When Fraudulently Transferred
  • 2011.10.13 ... The Sad Last Ballad of Jerry Lynn Williams: Divorce Decree Fails To Defeat Fraudulent Transfer Action
  • 2012.10.31 ... Kenrob Information - The IRS Fights Off Fraudulent Transfer Claim For Debtor S-Corporation's Tax Reimbursements To Shareholders
  • 2011.09.27 ... Schofield-Johnson: Husband's Failed Attempt To Shield Assets From The IRS By Transferring To Wife Who Transferred To An LLC
  • 2011.09.20 ... Racsko: Bankruptcy Trustee Of Mother Can Invade Her Children's Trust On Fraudulent Transfer Grounds

VALUE OPINIONS


REASONABLY EQUIVALENT VALUE OPINIONS