Fraudulent Transfers and the Subsequent Transferee Defense Under the Bankruptcy Code and UFTA /UVTA

When a transfer is avoided under the Bankruptcy Code (and states' Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), now known as the Uniform Voidable Transfers Act (UVTA)), a trustee may recover "the property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property" from several different players, but not from subsequent transferees who provide "value" for the transfers in good faith without knowledge of the avoidability of the initial transfer from the debtor.

Each of these criteria is litigated, including who is an initial transferee and the "mere conduit" defense, as well as the applicability of the IRS' 10-year lookback period.

In Rajala v. Spencer Fane L.L.P. (Generation Resources Holding Co. L.L.C.), 964 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 2020), the Tenth Circuit arguably created a new defense when it held that, to qualify as a "transferee" under Section 550, a party must have received the actual "property transferred." In other words, Section 550 did not authorize recovery of proceeds of fraudulently transferred property from subsequent transferees, only of the originally transferred property. The decision has been widely and uniformly criticized as gutting fraudulent transfer law and policy.

Listen as our authoritative panel of bankruptcy practitioners reviews the defense to fraudulent transfer claims for subsequent transferees of payment from the debtor. The panel will discuss best practices for third-party recipients of the funds to avail themselves of the defense and debtors to challenge the defense.