N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-23.4

(4) Section 4, unlike § 5, protects creditors of a debtor whose claims arise after as well as before the debtor made or incurred the challenged transfer or obligation. Similarly, there is no requirement in § 4(a)(1) that the intent referred to be directed at a creditor existing or identified at the time of transfer or incurrence. For example, promptly after the invention in Pennsylvania of the spendthrift trust, the assets and beneficial interest of which are immune from attachment by the beneficiary’s creditors, courts held that a debtor’s establishment of a spendthrift trust for the debtor’s own benefit is a voidable transfer under the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, without regard to whether the transaction is directed at an existing or identified creditor. Mackason’s Appeal, 42 Pa. 330, 338-39 (1862); see also, e.g., Ghormley v. Smith, 139 Pa. 584, 591-94 (1891); Patrick v. Smith, 2 Pa. Super. 113, 119 (1896). Cf. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 58(2) (2003) (setting forth a substantially similar rule as a matter of trust law). Likewise, for centuries § 4(a)(1) and its predecessors have been employed to invalidate nonpossessory property interests that are thought to be potentially deceptive, without regard to whether the deception is directed at an existing or identified creditor. See, e.g., McGann v. Capital Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 89 A.2d 123, 183-84 (Vt. 1952) (seller’s retention of possession of goods after sale held voidable); Superior Partners v. Prof’l Educ. Network, Inc., 485 N.E.2d 1218, 1221 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) (similar); Clow v. Woods, 5 Serg. & Rawle 275 (Pa. 1819) (holding that a nonpossessory chattel mortgage is voidable, in the absence of a system for giving public notice of such interests such as is today supplied by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code).

(5) Section 4(a)(2) is derived from §§ 5 and 6 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act but substitutes “reasonably equivalent value” for “fair consideration.” The transferee’s good faith was an element of “fair consideration” as defined in § 3 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, and lack of fair consideration was one of the elements of a fraudulent transfer as defined in four sections of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. The transferee’s good faith is irrelevant to a determination of the adequacy of the consideration under this Act, but lack of good faith may be a basis for withholding protection of a transferee or obligee under § 8.

(6) Unlike the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, this Act does not prescribe different tests for voidability of a transfer that is made for the purpose of security and a transfer that is intended to be absolute. The premise of this Act is that when a transfer is for security only, the equity or value of the asset that exceeds the amount of the debt secured remains available to unsecured creditors and thus cannot be regarded as the subject of a voidable transfer merely because of the encumbrance resulting from an otherwise valid security transfer. Disproportion between the value of the asset securing the debt and the size of the debt secured does not, in the absence of circumstances indicating a purpose to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, constitute an impermissible hindrance to the enforcement of other creditors’ rights against the debtor-transferor. Cf. U.C.C. § 9-401(b) (2014) (providing that a debtor’s interest in collateral subject to a security interest is transferable notwithstanding an agreement with the secured party prohibiting transfer).

(7) Subparagraph (i) of § 4(a)(2) is an adaptation of § 5 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act but substitutes “unreasonably small [assets] in relation to the business or transaction” for “unreasonably small capital.” The reference to “capital” in the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act might be interpreted, incorrectly, to refer to the par value of stock or to the consideration received for stock issued. The special meanings of “capital” in corporation law have no relevance in the law of voidable transfers. The subparagraph focuses attention on whether the amount of all the assets retained by the debtor was inadequate, i.e., unreasonably small, in light of the needs of the business or transaction in which the debtor was engaged or about to engage.

(8) Subsection (b) is a nonexclusive catalogue of factors appropriate for consideration by the court in determining whether the debtor had an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud one or more creditors. Proof of the existence of any one or more of the factors enumerated in subsection (b) may be relevant evidence as to the debtor’s actual intent but does not create a presumption that the debtor has made a voidable transfer or incurred a voidable obligation. The list of factors includes most of the so-called “badges of fraud” that have been recognized by the courts in construing and applying the Statute of 13 Elizabeth and § 7 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Proof of the presence of certain badges in combination establishes voidability conclusively—i.e., without regard to the actual intent of the debtor—when they concur as provided in § 4(a)(2) or in § 5. The fact that a transfer has been made to a relative or to an affiliated corporation has not been regarded as a badge of fraud sufficient to warrant avoidance when unaccompanied by any other evidence of intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. The courts have uniformly recognized, however, that a transfer to a closely related person warrants close scrutiny of the other circumstances, including the nature and extent of the consideration exchanged. See 1 G. Glenn, Fraudulent Conveyances and Preferences § 307 (Rev. ed. 1940). The second, third, fourth, and fifth factors listed are all adapted from the classic catalogue of badges of fraud provided by Lord Coke in Twyne’s Case, 3 Coke 80b, 76 Eng.Rep. 809 (Star Chamber 1601). Lord Coke also included the use of a trust and the recitation in the instrument of transfer that it “was made honestly, truly, and bona fide,” but the use of the trust is voidable only when accompanied by indicia of intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, and recitals of “good faith” can no longer be regarded as significant evidence of intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

(9) In considering the factors listed in § 4(b) a court should evaluate all the relevant circumstances involving a challenged transfer or obligation. Thus the court may appropriately take into account all indicia negativing as well as those suggesting intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, as illustrated in the following reported cases:

(10) The phrase “hinder, delay, or defraud” in § 4(a)(1), carried forward from the primordial Statute of 13 Elizabeth, is potentially applicable to any transaction that unacceptably contravenes norms of creditors’ rights. Section 4(a)(1) is sometimes said to require “actual fraud,” by contrast to § 4(a)(2) and § 5(a), which are said to require “constructive fraud.” That shorthand is highly misleading. Fraud is not a necessary element of a claim for relief under any of those provisions. By its terms, § 4(a)(1) applies to a transaction that “hinders” or “delays” a creditor, even if it does not “defraud” the creditor. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Wilgus, 287 U.S. 348, 354 (1932); Means v. Dowd, 128 U.S. 273, 288-89 (1888); Consove v. Cohen (In re Roco Corp.), 701 F.2d 978, 984 (1st Cir. 1983); Empire Lighting Fixture Co. v. Practical Lighting Fixture Co., 20 F.2d 295, 297 (2d Cir. 1927); Lippe v. Bairnco Corp., 249 F. Supp. 2d 357, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). “Hinder, delay, or defraud” is best considered to be a single term of art describing a transaction that unacceptably contravenes norms of creditors’ rights. Such a transaction need not bear any resemblance to common-law fraud. Thus, the Supreme Court held a given transfer voidable because made with intent to “hinder, delay, or defraud” creditors, but emphasized: “We have no thought in so holding to impute to [the debtor] a willingness to participate in conduct known to be fraudulent…. [He] acted in the genuine belief that what [he] planned was fair and lawful. Genuine the belief was, but mistaken it was also. Conduct and purpose have a quality imprinted on them by the law.” Shapiro v. Wilgus. 287 U.S. 348, 357 (1932).

(11) This Act is not an exclusive law on the subject of voidable transfers and obligations. See § 1, Comment 2. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code supplements or modifies the operation of this Act in numerous ways. Instances include the following:

(12) Subsection (c) was added in 2014. Sections 2(b), 4(c), 5(c), 8(g), and 8(h) together provide uniform rules on burdens and standards of proof relating to the operation of this Act.

(13) Subsection (c) allocates to the party making a claim for relief under § 4 the burden of persuasion as to the elements of the claim. Courts should not apply nonstatutory presumptions that reverse that allocation, and should be wary of nonstatutory presumptions that would dilute it. The command of § 13—that this Act is to be applied so as to effectuate its purpose of making uniform the law among states enacting it—applies with particular cogency to nonstatutory presumptions. Given the elasticity of key terms of this Act (e.g., “hinder, delay, or defraud”) and the potential difficulty of proving others (e.g., the financial condition tests in § 4(a)(2) and § 5), employment of divergent nonstatutory presumptions by enacting jurisdictions may render the law nonuniform as a practical matter. It is not the purpose of subsection (c) to forbid employment of any and all nonstatutory presumptions. Indeed, in some instances a judicially-crafted presumption applied under this Act or its predecessors has won such favor as to be codified as a separate statutory creation. Examples include the bulk sales laws, the absolute priority rule applicable to reorganizations under Bankruptcy Code § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) (2014), and the so-called “constructive fraud” provisions of § 4(a)(2) and § 5(a) of this Act itself. However, subsection (c) and § 13 mean, at the least, that a nonstatutory presumption is suspect if it would alter the statutorily-allocated burden of persuasion, would upset the policy of uniformity, or is an unwarranted carrying-forward of obsolescent principles. An example of a nonstatutory presumption that should be rejected for those reasons is a presumption that the transferee bears the burden of persuasion as to the debtor’s compliance with the financial condition tests in § 4(a)(2) and § 5, in an action under those provisions, if the transfer was for less than reasonably equivalent value (or, as another example, if the debtor was merely in debt at the time of the transfer). See Fidelity Bond & Mtg. Co. v. Brand, 371 B.R. 708, 716-22 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (rejecting such a presumption previously applied in Pennsylvania).