Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 APRIL 2015

Fraudulent Conveyance, Preference

The debtor engaged in extensive shenanigans and transfers. He claimed a trust in favour of a corporation when the corporation was not incorporated until many years after the date the trust allegedly arose.

CanadaCorporate/Commercial Law

Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v. Sieber Estate (Trustee) 2015 Ont SCJ

The debtor engaged in extensive shenanigans and transfers. He claimed a trust in favour of a corporation when the corporation was not incorporated until many years after the date the trust allegedly arose. Shares were backdated. The trust agreement was backdated. The creditor obtained a section 38 BIA order. The court held that the trust was a sham. There was no documentation of the creation of the trust. The trust had no accounting records, financial statements, bank accounts, bank records, or tax returns. That in itself was sufficient to be fatal to the supposed existence of the trust. It was a non-operational phantom trust. Once one of the badges of fraud exists, a presumption of fraud takes hold and the defendants must provide some adequate explanation. Of review of cases on fraudulent conveyance and trusts, the judge set aside the fraudulent conveyance to vest the disputed property with

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from