- 9 - companies. Respondent presented no persuasive evidence that Mr. Solaas' salary was unreasonable. After considering all the facts and circumstances, we hold that the salary KBI paid to Mr. Solaas was reasonable and was not actual fraud on KBI's creditors. 2. Constructive Fraud Respondent argues that Mr. Solaas did not give reasonably equivalent value for the amount of increase in salary from 1987 to 1988.3 Mr. Solaas argues that he gave reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the salary KBI paid him in 1988 and that respondent has failed to carry the burden of proof because respondent produced no evidence of reasonable compensation. For the Court to find constructive fraud, KBI must not have received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer it made to Mr. Solaas (the salary it paid him). Cal. Civ. Code secs. 3439.04(b), 3439.05. In general, what constitutes "reasonably equivalent value" under the UFTA must be determined from the standpoint of the transferor's creditors. In re Prejean, 994 F.2d 706, 708 (9th Cir. 1993). Respondent points out that Mr. Solaas alone determined the salary KBI paid him and that the increase in his salary from 1987 to 1988 was five times greater than the increase to the other 3 Respondent concedes that KBI received reasonably equivalent value for $156,000 of the $203,980 salary it paid to Mr. Solaas in 1988.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011