The fraudulent conveyance statute requires satisfaction of one of two conditions. One is ” actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became . . . intended.” The other is that the debtor “received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation” and was insolvent at the time (or met one of three other criteria).
That being said—while it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to speculate on any specific organization’s exposure—both the foreign nature of an organization and a relatively small grant size are favorable predictors for the estate deciding clawback proceedings would not be cost-effective and/or settling the claim on favorable terms in light of those costs. I think those kinds of facts may ultimately matter more than the timing of a grant.
The fraudulent conveyance statute requires satisfaction of one of two conditions. One is ” actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became . . . intended.” The other is that the debtor “received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation” and was insolvent at the time (or met one of three other criteria).
That being said—while it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to speculate on any specific organization’s exposure—both the foreign nature of an organization and a relatively small grant size are favorable predictors for the estate deciding clawback proceedings would not be cost-effective and/or settling the claim on favorable terms in light of those costs. I think those kinds of facts may ultimately matter more than the timing of a grant.