ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 160
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 160/4 (2026)

(a) Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor's business to furnish support to the debtor or another person

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 160/4) (from Ch. 59, par. 104)
    Sec. 4. (a) Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor's business to furnish support to the debtor or another person.
    (b) For the purposes of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 5 and Section 6, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of the interest of the debtor upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.
    (c) A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.
(Source: P.A. 86-814.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Reinbold v. Morton Cmty. Bank (In re Mid-Illini Hardwoods, LLC), 576 B.R. 598 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reinbold v. Morton Cmty. Bank (In re Mid-Illini Hardwoods, LLC), 576 B.R. 598 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2017). · cites it 2× “-740 ILCS 160/4(a). “Reasonable equivalence” requires a comparison of the value of what went out with the value of what was received, based upon fair market value at the time of the transfer.”
Doly v. Chang (In Re Joy Recovery Tech. Corp.), 286 B.R. 54 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002). “"740 ILCS 160/4(b). 3 . See Bay State Milling Co.”
Berland v. Mussa (In Re Mussa), 215 B.R. 158 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997). · cites it 2× “Value, under the UFTA, is given for a transfer “if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s…”
Helms v. Roti (In Re Roti), 271 B.R. 281 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002). “740 ILCS 160/4(b) sets forth a definition for "reasonably equivalent value” that does not apply to this matter.”
Grochocinski v. Zeigler (In Re Zeigler), 320 B.R. 362 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 160/4(b) sets forth a definition for “reasonably equivalent value" that does not apply to this matter.”
Krol v. Wilcek (In Re H. King & Assocs.), 295 B.R. 246 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003). “740 ILCS 160/4(b) sets forth a definition for "reasonably equivalent value” that does not apply to this matter.”
The Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Bonnie M. Lockwood, 315 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2002). “The statutes make this clear (“value [given for a transfer] does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s business to furnish support to the debtor or another person,” 740 ILCS 160/4(a); see also Ind.”
Daley v. Chang (In Re Joy Recovery Tech. Corp.), 257 B.R. 253 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001). “” 740 ILCS 160/4(b). For this reason, case law is used as support.”
Fisher v. Sellas (In Re Lake States Commodities, Inc.), 272 B.R. 233 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002). “740 ILCS 160/4 (West 2001). 45. “In a Ponzi scheme, an enterprise makes payments to investors with monies received from newly attracted investors, rather than from profits of a legitimate business venture.”
Cox v. Nostaw, Inc. (In re Cent. Illinois Energy Coop.), 521 B.R. 868 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2014). “ANALYSIS Resolution of the constructive fraud claims turns on whether the DEBTOR was obligated to NOSTAW for the three payments of $300,000 each it made in October and November, 2007, so that the payments discharged its liability, thereby providing equivalent value.”
Sheldon Stone, as Creditor Tr. of the Internat v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2022). · cites it 2× “740 ILCS 160/4(a). As for whether there is a reasonable equivalence between values exchanged, the Seventh Circuit has described the test—at least under §548—as one not controlled by a fixed mathematical formula but, instead, a comparison of the value of what was transferred to…”
Fisher v. Prime Table Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. (In Re Lake States Commodities, Inc.), 271 B.R. 575 (2002). “740 ILCS 160/4 (West 2001). 48.“In a Ponzi scheme, an enterprise makes payments to investors with monies received from newly attracted investors, *584 rather than from profits of a legitimate business venture.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 160/4(a) — 7 cases
Reinbold v. Morton Cmty. Bank (In re Mid-Illini Hardwoods, LLC), 576 B.R. 598 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2017). “-740 ILCS 160/4(a). “Reasonable equivalence” requires a comparison of the value of what went out with the value of what was received, based upon fair market value at the time of the transfer.”
Berland v. Mussa (In Re Mussa), 215 B.R. 158 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997). “Value, under the UFTA, is given for a transfer “if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s…”
The Nostalgia Network, Inc. v. Bonnie M. Lockwood, 315 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2002). “The statutes make this clear (“value [given for a transfer] does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s business to furnish support to the debtor or another person,” 740 ILCS 160/4(a); see also Ind.”
Cox v. Nostaw, Inc. (In re Cent. Illinois Energy Coop.), 521 B.R. 868 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2014). “ANALYSIS Resolution of the constructive fraud claims turns on whether the DEBTOR was obligated to NOSTAW for the three payments of $300,000 each it made in October and November, 2007, so that the payments discharged its liability, thereby providing equivalent value.”
Sheldon Stone, as Creditor Tr. of the Internat v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2022). “740 ILCS 160/4(a). As for whether there is a reasonable equivalence between values exchanged, the Seventh Circuit has described the test—at least under §548—as one not controlled by a fixed mathematical formula but, instead, a comparison of the value of what was transferred to…”
— 740 ILCS 160/4(b) — 5 cases
Doly v. Chang (In Re Joy Recovery Tech. Corp.), 286 B.R. 54 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002). “"740 ILCS 160/4(b). 3 . See Bay State Milling Co.”
Helms v. Roti (In Re Roti), 271 B.R. 281 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002). “740 ILCS 160/4(b) sets forth a definition for "reasonably equivalent value” that does not apply to this matter.”
Grochocinski v. Zeigler (In Re Zeigler), 320 B.R. 362 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005). “740 ILCS 160/4(b) sets forth a definition for “reasonably equivalent value" that does not apply to this matter.”
Krol v. Wilcek (In Re H. King & Assocs.), 295 B.R. 246 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003). “740 ILCS 160/4(b) sets forth a definition for "reasonably equivalent value” that does not apply to this matter.”
Daley v. Chang (In Re Joy Recovery Tech. Corp.), 257 B.R. 253 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001). “” 740 ILCS 160/4(b). For this reason, case law is used as support.”
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.