With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fair consideration.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on this analysis, the Court concludes that the Trustee’s claims to recover principal for constructive fraudulent conveyance under NYDCL §§ 273, 274 and 275 must fail. In her papers and at the Hearing, the Trustee has made clear that she does not dispute that the Defendants provided “fair equivalent” value under the NYDCL in exchange for the repayment of principal because such repayment extinguished a common law claim, such as restitution, that the Defendants may have had against Dreier LLP. Courts have recognized that reduction of a restitution claim satisfies an antecedent debt in the context of a fraudulent scheme. See Jobin v. McKay (In re M & L Bus. Mach. Co., Inc.), 84 F.3d 1330, 1342 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Wyle v. C.H. Rider & Family (In re United

A: holding that debtors payments to investors were for reasonably equivalent value because such payments reduced the amount of the investors claims for rescission
B: holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments
C: holding that a debtors ability to make reduced payments under the icrp is relevant to the inquiry of whether the debtors reasonable future financial resources will cover payment of the debt while still allowing a minimal standard of living
D: holding that payments to debtors counsel from a whollyowned subsidiary constituted property of the estate
A.