With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". knowledge of the debtor’s intent to defraud creditors might be sufficient to prove that the defendant acted in bad faith; it does not imply that lack of good faith is part of the prima facie showing the Trustee needs to make in order to prove his case. Indeed, the opposite is true, as many courts have acknowledged: good faith is an affirmative defense available to SFC. See Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 548.10 (15th Ed. rev.2006) (stating that section 548 is based on the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); In re Cohen, 199 B.R. 709, 719 (9th Cir. BAP 1996) (“The issue of good faith under UFTA § 8(a) is a defensive matter as to which the defendants asserting the existence of good faith have the burden of proof’); In re Candor Diamond Corp., 76 B.R. 342, 349 n. 4 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1987) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, under § 548(a)(1)(A), the

A: holding that the district court erred in failing to instruct that good faith reliance on counsels advice is a defense to the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement under 29 usc  501c
B: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
C: holding that chapter 13 debtor lacked standing under 11 usc  548 but finding limited authority for the debtor to avoid a transfer under 11 usc  522h
D: holding that transferees intent is only relevant for the purposes of a good faith defense and is not part of the trustees prima facie case to recover fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 usc  548
D.