UC知道法律英文 翻译 高分奖励 在线等
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/06/07 09:35:24
I. Introduction
In fraudulent conveyance law, a relatively undeveloped defense exists that could completely insulate a defendant from fraudulent transfer liability. The defense, derived from the enduring principle that substance should prevail over form, is called the step-transaction defense, the integrated transaction defense, or the collapsing defense. Regardless of the name, however, there is one central point — that a defendant should not be held liable under a fraudulent transfer theory if the defendant's receipt of the transfer was merely a single step in a larger multi-layer transaction and the transaction as a whole had little or no net effect on the debtor.
Fraudulent conveyance actions are frequently brought under the United States Bankruptcy Code or state law by a trustee, debtor-in-possession or creditors' committee to recover money, real property or other interests that a debtor transferred to a third party. The bankruptcy estate's representative m
In fraudulent conveyance law, a relatively undeveloped defense exists that could completely insulate a defendant from fraudulent transfer liability. The defense, derived from the enduring principle that substance should prevail over form, is called the step-transaction defense, the integrated transaction defense, or the collapsing defense. Regardless of the name, however, there is one central point — that a defendant should not be held liable under a fraudulent transfer theory if the defendant's receipt of the transfer was merely a single step in a larger multi-layer transaction and the transaction as a whole had little or no net effect on the debtor.
Fraudulent conveyance actions are frequently brought under the United States Bankruptcy Code or state law by a trustee, debtor-in-possession or creditors' committee to recover money, real property or other interests that a debtor transferred to a third party. The bankruptcy estate's representative m
引言
在欺诈性财产转让法中，有一个相对来说未被重视的抗辩（理由），能够使被告免于承担欺诈性转让的责任。这个抗辩叫做交易步骤抗辩，或者叫综合交易抗辩，还可以叫断裂抗辩，源自于实质优于形式的古老原则。然而不管名称如何多样，他们都有一个共同的核心要点——如果被告的转让行为仅仅构成一个大的系列交易的一个步骤，并且该交易从总体来说对债务人仅产生很小或不产生影响，则被告不应该基于欺诈性转让理论而承担责任。
（美国）联邦破产法或州法律涉及托管人、占有中的债务人（指债务人破产后，债权人继续留用债务人代为管理经营）或者债权人委员会为了追回金钱、不动产及被债务人转移至第三方的其他利益时经常涉及欺诈性转让行为。破产财产利益的代表人必须证明债务人基于阻碍、延迟或欺诈债权人的故意而进行财产转移，或者债务人在资不抵债或被宣告破产后以低于公平价格出售财产。有基于此，各方通常就是否根据现行有效法规存在事实上的欺诈而产生讼争，并试图查清债权人的偿债能力及转让财产所取得的对价。但是以下情况却被忽略了，即债务人的转移行为是否构成了一个以规避（偿债）为目的周密的交易，或者换句话说，该转移行为仅仅是一个复杂交易（体系）的一小部分？如果更适合被理解为后者，则被告就可能拥有一个完全的抗辩（理由）。
供参考。
试一下在线翻译吧