Delaware Code

6 Del. C. § 1304 (2026)

Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:

(1) With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or

(2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:

a. Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or

b. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.

(b) In determining actual intent under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:

(1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider;

(2) The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;

(3) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;

(4) Before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;

(5) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets;

(6) The debtor absconded;

(7) The debtor removed or concealed assets;

(8) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred;

(9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;

(10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and

(11) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

70 Del. Laws, c. 434, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 103 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Petróleos De Venezuela, S.A., 879 F.3d 79 (3rd Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Petróleos De Venezuela, S.A., 879 F.3d 79 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 10× “6 Del. C. § 1304. C. District Court Denies PDVH’s Motion to Dismiss PDVH moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp., 396 B.R. 278 (S.D. Tex. 2008). · cites it 13× “” 6 Del. C. § 1304(a), (a)(1). *365 1. Burden Of Proof Neither the Delaware Supreme Court nor any Delaware appellate court has expressly addressed the issue regarding the standard of proof applicable to Delaware UFTA claims.”

Michaelson ex rel. Appleseed's Litig. Trust v. Farmer (In re Appleseed's Intermediate Holdings, LLC), 470 B.R. 289 (D. Del. 2012). · cites it 5× “6 Del.C. § 1304(a). The Statute lists several nonexclusive factors, or badges of fraud, to facilitate an analysis of actual intent.”

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., 213 F. Supp. 3d 683 (D. Del. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 6 Del. C. § 1304(a). 3. Proper Defendants CITGO Defendants note that “there is no debtor-creditor relationship” between them and Plaintiff.”

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Midway Games Inc. v. Nat'l Amusements Inc. (In Re Midway Games Inc.), 428 B.R. 303 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010). · cites it 3× “See 6 Del. C. §§ 1304, 1305 (2009). 14 . The Independent Directors add some spice to their argument by suggesting that the Committee "does not cite a simple reported decision in over 200 years of bankruptcy jurisdiction in which directors' fees have been avoided either as…”

Brickley ex rel. CryptoMetrics, Inc. Creditors' Trust v. ScanTech Identification Beams Sys., LLC, 566 B.R. 815 (W.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 6 Del. C. § 1304(a). The Court first rejects the defendants’ argument that the “information and belief’ pleadings are not sufficient to support a claims against SIBS.”

Burtch v. Seaport Capital, LLC (In re Direct Response Media, Inc.), 466 B.R. 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012). “Delaware law, 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(1), contains the same standard for fraudulent transfer as the Code, namely, the "actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud.”

Burtch v. Huston (In Re USdigital, Inc.), 443 B.R. 22 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011). “6 Del. C. § 1304(a)(2) and 1305(a); See In re Hechinger Inv.”

Goldstein v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (In re Universal Mktg., Inc.), 541 B.R. 259 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2015). · cites it 4× “§ 544 (b) and 6 Del. C. §§ 1304,1305 D. WSFS Was Not an “Initial Transferee” of the UMI Transfers 1.”

Joseph v. Frank (In Re Troll Commc'ns, LLC), 385 B.R. 110 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008). “Count Four, which sought avoidance and recovery of certain allegedly fraudulent transfers pursuant to 6 Del. C. § 1304, and 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 , 548, 550, and 551 against QVP, was withdrawn voluntarily by the Trustee in its Combined Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendants’…”

United States v. West, 299 F. Supp. 661 (D. Del. 1969). · cites it 3× “The government argues in its briefs that the conveyance in question is fraudulent under 6 Del.C. § 1304, 5 a verbatim adoption of section 4 of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, which states: Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred by a person who is or will be…”

Giuliano v. Schnabel (In re DSI Renal Holdings, LLC), 574 B.R. 446 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017). “§ 548 (a)(1)(B) and 6 Del. C. §§ 1304 & 1305 Pursuant to 11 U.”

Show all 103 citing cases →

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(1) — 1 case

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(a) — 19 cases

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Petróleos De Venezuela, S.A., 879 F.3d 79 (3rd Cir. 2018). “6 Del. C. § 1304. C. District Court Denies PDVH’s Motion to Dismiss PDVH moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”

ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp., 396 B.R. 278 (S.D. Tex. 2008). “” 6 Del. C. § 1304(a), (a)(1). *365 1. Burden Of Proof Neither the Delaware Supreme Court nor any Delaware appellate court has expressly addressed the issue regarding the standard of proof applicable to Delaware UFTA claims.”

Michaelson ex rel. Appleseed's Litig. Trust v. Farmer (In re Appleseed's Intermediate Holdings, LLC), 470 B.R. 289 (D. Del. 2012). “6 Del.C. § 1304(a). The Statute lists several nonexclusive factors, or badges of fraud, to facilitate an analysis of actual intent.”

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., 213 F. Supp. 3d 683 (D. Del. 2016). “See 6 Del. C. § 1304(a). 3. Proper Defendants CITGO Defendants note that “there is no debtor-creditor relationship” between them and Plaintiff.”

Brickley ex rel. CryptoMetrics, Inc. Creditors' Trust v. ScanTech Identification Beams Sys., LLC, 566 B.R. 815 (W.D. Tex. 2017). “” 6 Del. C. § 1304(a). The Court first rejects the defendants’ argument that the “information and belief’ pleadings are not sufficient to support a claims against SIBS.”

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(a)(1) — 29 cases

Miller v. McCown De Leeuw & Co. (In Re Brown Schs.), 386 B.R. 37 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008).

Multimedia Pat. Trust v. Microsoft Corp., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(a)(2) — 44 cases

Burtch v. Huston (In Re USdigital, Inc.), 443 B.R. 22 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011). “6 Del. C. § 1304(a)(2) and 1305(a); See In re Hechinger Inv.”

Burtch v. Masiz (In re Vaso Active Pharm., Inc.), 500 B.R. 384 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013).

Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Midway Games Inc. v. Nat'l Amusements Inc. (In Re Midway Games Inc.), 428 B.R. 303 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010). “See 6 Del. C. §§ 1304, 1305 (2009). 14 . The Independent Directors add some spice to their argument by suggesting that the Committee "does not cite a simple reported decision in over 200 years of bankruptcy jurisdiction in which directors' fees have been avoided either as…”

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(a)(2)(a) — 2 cases

Richard F. Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(a)(2)(b) — 1 case

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b) — 17 cases

Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Venezuela, 251 F. Supp. 3d 758 (D. Del. 2017).

Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co., LTD. v. Bruggeman (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Applied Energetics, Inc. v. George Farley & AnneMarieCo, LLC (Del. Ch. 2019).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(1) — 8 cases

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).

Amerscape, LLC v. Acacia Com. Servs., Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(10) — 1 case

Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC v. Boomerang Tube, LLC (Del. Ch. 2023).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(2) — 1 case

Susan Fringer v. Kersey Homes, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2018).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(3) — 1 case

Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC v. Boomerang Tube, LLC (Del. Ch. 2023).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(4) — 1 case

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claudio Ballard (Del. Ch. 2019).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(5) — 1 case

Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC v. Boomerang Tube, LLC (Del. Ch. 2023).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(7) — 1 case

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claudio Ballard (Del. Ch. 2019).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(8) — 1 case

Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC v. Boomerang Tube, LLC (Del. Ch. 2023).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(b)(9) — 6 cases

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claudio Ballard (Del. Ch. 2019).

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).

Amerscape, LLC v. Acacia Com. Servs., Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).

Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC v. Boomerang Tube, LLC (Del. Ch. 2023).

BV Advisory Partners, LLC v. Quantum Computing, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2024).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(d)(1) — 2 cases

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).

Amerscape, LLC v. Acacia Com. Servs., Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).

— 6 Del. C. § 1304(d)(3) — 2 cases

CIBC Bank USA v. JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2021).

Amerscape, LLC v. Acacia Com. Servs., Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.