Valuing Forbearance in Fraudulent Transfer Actions

, New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

James H. Millar, a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Neil Steinkamp, a director at Stout Risius Ross, write that courts have routinely recognized that forbearance can comprise a component of reasonably equivalent value with respect to a fraudulent transfer analysis. However, courts at times reach a summary conclusion with respect to valuing forbearance without readily providing significant detail around the attendant calculations.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202579915267

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.