N.J. Stat. » Title 25 — FRAUDS AND FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 25:2-27 (2026)

Transfer or obligation voidable as to present creditor

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

25:2-27. Transfer or obligation voidable as to present creditor.

a. A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.

b. A transfer made by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.

c. Subject to subsection b. of R.S.25:2-23, a creditor making a claim for relief under subsection a. or b. of this section has the burden of proving the elements of the claim for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707 (D.N.J. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707 (D.N.J. 2013). · cites it 22× “Plaintiff also claims that Defendants violated subpart (b) of N.J.S.A. § 25:2-27, which relates to fraudulent transfers made to “insiders.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Antar, 120 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 19× “Turning first to the SEC’s claims under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (“UFTA”), this court finds that entry of summary judgment is appropriate with respect to the SEC’s claim under N.J.S.A. § 25:2-27(a). In the Amended and Supplemental Complaint, the SEC set forth two…”
MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto, 875 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 9× “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-27 (a). Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs claim under this subsection on the grounds that (1) Defendant HTS received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the relevant asset transfer; and (2) Defendant HTS was not insolvent at the time of the…”
Wilen v. Pamrapo Sav. Bank, S.L.A. (In Re Bayonne Med. Ctr.), 429 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010). · cites it 7× “§ 547 (b) and a voidable' transfer under the New Jersey *172 Fraudulent Transfer Act, N.J.SA. 25:2-27(b). Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff on Counts V and IX of the Complaint.”
G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Those Parties Listed on Exhibit a (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 313 B.R. 612 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2004). · cites it 2× “] 18 *634 Further, N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a) provides an additional avenue for avoiding fraudulent transfers under New Jersey law as to present creditors.”
Forman v. Jeffrey Matthews Fin. Grp., LLC (In Re Halpert & Co.), 254 B.R. 104 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999). · cites it 3× “25:2-25(a) and (b); N.J.S.A. 25:2-27, and N.J.S.A. 25:2-29). Count Three alleges that defendants Alan Halpert, Jeffrey Halpert, Matthew Cohen, and JMFG willfully converted the business and assets of Halpert & Co.”
Wolf v. Tzanides (In re Tzanides), 574 B.R. 489 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2017). · cites it 2× “Further, N.J.S.A. 25:2-27 provides an additional avenue for avoiding fraudulent transfers under New Jersey law as to present creditors.”
Off. Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v. Rachles (In Re S. Rachles, Inc.), 131 B.R. 782 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1991). · cites it 2× “The UFTA, as adopted by New Jersey, requires a cause of action brought under Section 25:2-27(b) to be filed within one year after the transfer was made.”
Advanced Telecomm. Network, Inc. v. Allen (In Re Advanced Telecomm. Network, Inc.), 321 B.R. 308 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 2× “With that short statutory explanation, the counts alleged in ATN’s Amended Complaint can be summarized as follows: • Counts 1 and 2 assert constructive fraud counts under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-27 (b) assuming present creditors existed prior to the incurrence of the obligations…”
Forman v. Salzano (In Re Norvergence, Inc.), 405 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2009). “§§ 544 (b), 550 and N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(b) against TNS, Charles and the other insiders.”
VFB LLC v. Campbell Soup Co., 482 F.3d 624 (3rd Cir. 2007). “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-27 (a). Alternatively: 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…”
In Re Jong Hee Kang, 467 B.R. 327 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 2× “§§ 544 (a) and (b) and 547; N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(b). However, in the context of this case, Ms.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-27(a) — 17 cases
Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707 (D.N.J. 2013). “Plaintiff also claims that Defendants violated subpart (b) of N.J.S.A. § 25:2-27, which relates to fraudulent transfers made to “insiders.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Antar, 120 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D.N.J. 2000). “Turning first to the SEC’s claims under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (“UFTA”), this court finds that entry of summary judgment is appropriate with respect to the SEC’s claim under N.J.S.A. § 25:2-27(a). In the Amended and Supplemental Complaint, the SEC set forth two…”
G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Those Parties Listed on Exhibit a (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.), 313 B.R. 612 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2004). “] 18 *634 Further, N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a) provides an additional avenue for avoiding fraudulent transfers under New Jersey law as to present creditors.”
MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto, 875 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.N.J. 2012). “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-27 (a). Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs claim under this subsection on the grounds that (1) Defendant HTS received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the relevant asset transfer; and (2) Defendant HTS was not insolvent at the time of the…”
Pyfer v. Am. Mgmt. Servs., Inc. (In Re Nat'l Pool Constr., Inc.), 598 F. App'x 841 (3rd Cir. 2015).
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-27(b) — 10 cases
Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707 (D.N.J. 2013). “Plaintiff also claims that Defendants violated subpart (b) of N.J.S.A. § 25:2-27, which relates to fraudulent transfers made to “insiders.”
Wilen v. Pamrapo Sav. Bank, S.L.A. (In Re Bayonne Med. Ctr.), 429 B.R. 152 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010). “§ 547 (b) and a voidable' transfer under the New Jersey *172 Fraudulent Transfer Act, N.J.SA. 25:2-27(b). Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff on Counts V and IX of the Complaint.”
Off. Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v. Rachles (In Re S. Rachles, Inc.), 131 B.R. 782 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1991). “The UFTA, as adopted by New Jersey, requires a cause of action brought under Section 25:2-27(b) to be filed within one year after the transfer was made.”
MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto, 875 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.N.J. 2012). “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 25:2-27 (a). Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs claim under this subsection on the grounds that (1) Defendant HTS received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the relevant asset transfer; and (2) Defendant HTS was not insolvent at the time of the…”
Forman v. Salzano (In Re Norvergence, Inc.), 405 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2009). “§§ 544 (b), 550 and N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(b) against TNS, Charles and the other insiders.”
— N.J. Stat. § 25:2-27(c) — 1 case
J.P. v. J.N. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
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.