- 10 -
officers' salaries. Respondent argues that there was no apparent
reason why Mr. Solaas gave himself a large increase, that Mr.
Solaas offered no explanation for the difference in increases
among the officers' salaries, and, therefore, Mr. Solaas did not
give reasonably equivalent value for the increase in his salary.
This argument is unconvincing. We have already found that the
salary KBI paid Mr. Solaas was reasonable. Therefore, we hold
that the salary KBI paid Mr. Solaas was not constructive fraud on
KBI's creditors.
The Loans
1. KBI's Loans to Mr. Solaas
On brief, respondent argues for the first time that the
loans KBI made to Mr. Solaas were something other than loans;
i.e., respondent refers to KBI's loans to Mr. Solaas as "alleged
loans". In the notice of transferee liability and answer,
however, respondent concedes that KBI loaned Mr. Solaas money.
2. Actual Fraud
Respondent contends that the loans to Mr. Solaas from 1988
through 1992 constitute actual fraud on KBI's creditors. Mr.
Solaas argues that respondent has failed to prove that the loans
to him constitute actual fraud on KBI's creditors.
For the Court to find actual fraud, Mr. Solaas must have
actually intended to hinder, delay, or defraud any of KBI's
creditors. Cal. Civ. Code sec. 3439.04(a). Respondent suggests
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011