C. Randel Lewis, Solely in His Capacity as Receiver, Petitioner v. Steve Taylor, Respondent.

Summary

The court held that an innocent investor in an equity-type Ponzi scheme who had no contractual right to a return did not provide reasonably equivalent value for profits exceeding the investor's principal merely by allowing the investment to remain in the scheme. Because the time value of money was not value recognized by CUFTA in these circumstances, the investor could not invoke CUFTA's affirmative defense to retain the profits, although he could retain his initial investment as repayment of an antecedent restitution claim. Justice Hart, dissenting, would have required a transfer-by-transfer assessment based on the investment agreement and the circumstances existing when each withdrawal occurred.