Talk:Fraudulent conveyance

Benefit of recovered fraudulent transfers
User 63.90.118.98, I think you may have misunderstood the statement that the trustee can recover fraudulently transferred property for the benefit of all of the creditors when you made your change. Or, perhaps my statement of it was not clear. Standing is not the issue here but the practical result is: if the fraudulently transferred property is not recovered, it is not available for the creditors of the debtor in a liquidation or reorganization. That recovery benefit may be indirect in the strictly legal sense you posit, but it is the creditors who urge the bankruptcy trustees to file the petitions to recover fraudulent transfers so the property can be applied to their claims. Especially in liquidations, what the debtor gets from the recovery of a fraudulent transfer is serendipity (though the recovery might help a homeowner who made an unintentional fraudulently transfer of a residence for which an exemption was available). Finally, recovery of fraudulently transferred property is just as applicable to non-corporate debtors as well as corporate ones. Anoneditor 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

actio pauliana
actio pauliana forwards to fraudulent conveyances, but there is nothing about the term "actio pauliana" in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.9.10 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fraudulent conveyance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225032825/http://www.nccusl.org/ to http://www.nccusl.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section has multiple issues. Firstly, it appears to be a definition, secondly this definition is extra information. See MOS:LEAD for purpose of the lead. It provides an accessible overview to the whole article, not just a definition of the topic of an article. Information in the lead should be in the body of the article too. See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The topic of this article is never defined or explained in the body of the article. I think the first sentence of the lead could simply summarize a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer as a "property transfer to hinder debt collection", which is essentially the short description. Most readers are not lawyers, so a simple explanation is needed in the lead to orient readers about this topic. The full definition can be saved for the body of the article. The lead should go on to cover other aspects, such as how to recognise the fraud, how to avoid or prevent it and what the fraud is not. The consequences of this fraud and its rectification could also be mentioned. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)