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 cannot retain profits exceeding the amount invested by asserting that the investment's time value constituted reasonably equivalent value under CUFTA. Because the investor had no contractual right to a return and provided no statutory value for the excess payments, the court reversed the court of appeals and remanded. Justice Hart, dissenting, would have required a transfer-by-transfer analysis based on the investment agreement and would not have categorically excluded the investor's withdrawal rights from the value inquiry.