(d) an enforcement order on a creditor`s assets; (b) assignment by a creditor for the benefit of its creditors; Sixth, the question of choice of law has been simplified, since the principal residence of the assignor at the time of the transfer is decisive. (a) the filing by or against a creditor of an application under any of the provisions of the Federal Bankruptcy Act or its amendments, or the commencement of proceedings following bankruptcy, bankruptcy, discharge of the debtor or other similar law or body of laws; (e) the issuance of a summons or order in supplementary proceedings against or relating to the assets of a creditor; ‚ÄČor (c) an application for the appointment or appointment of an insolvency practitioner or the assets of a creditor; First, perhaps most importantly, the avoidance period has been reduced from six to four years. Previously, the DCL operated under a catch-all provision CPLR 213, where there were no explicit restrictions elsewhere. Four has been the norm in most other states for some time. Seventh, the new Article 10 applies only to transfers made on or after 4 April 2020. Third, UVTA creates an insider claim under Section 274(b), which is subject to legal defenses under Section 277(f) and a one-year review period. Many of these amendments align section 10 with section 548 of the Insolvency Code. Fifth, the term “countervailable” is used instead of “fraudulent” and the term “questionable transactions” has replaced “fraudulent transfers”. During my Dean`s Hour presentation at the Nassau County Bar Association on 4. In March 2020, I will discuss new section 10, how it differs from its predecessor, how it differs from avoidance claims under Chapter 5 of the Insolvency Act, and the implications of the April 4, 2020 coming-into-force date. Fourth, good faith has been removed as an element of fair consideration. Previously, “fair consideration” required both “reasonable equivalence” and the fact that the transfer was made in “good faith.” Instead, “reasonably equivalent value” as understood in the insolvency context will be the norm.

In this blog, I made some preliminary remarks on the new Article 10. Second, no provision comparable to former Article 273-a of the DCL (the “special” provision for defendants, which provides for a remedy where a transfer has been made in the course of a dispute in which a judgment is rendered against the assignor and is not enforced) is included in the new Article 10. Until now, New York State remained one of only two states that did not adopt UVTA. The existing DCL regulations stem from the UFCA, which was adopted by the State of New York in 1925.