In the appeal, the agent argued, pursuant to the Ohio Fraudulent Uniform Transfer Act (UFTA), that the debtor could avoid obligations and payments incurred under the 2004 revised loan agreement, given that the security interest and payments transferred by the debtor under the 2004 revised loan agreement are classified as fraudulent transfers. The trustee argued that the right of pledge granted under the 2002 loan agreement had been cancelled because the revised 2004 loan agreement was a novation of the 2002 loan agreement and that, when the 2002 loan agreement was cancelled, the guarantee interest granted under the 2002 loan agreement had also been cancelled. To claim to remedy the situation under the Ohio UFTA, the 6th Circuit stated that the agent must assert facts that plausibly indicate that the assets or shares of assets transferred by the debtor under the amended 2004 loan agreement were not already encumbered by an existing right of pledge. The 6th Circle then reviewed the elements of intent, knowledge and approval to determine whether there had been a novation of the 2002 loan agreement. The 6. Kreis supported a novation: (1) the text of the 2004 revised loan agreement, in which several provisions of the 2004 revised loan agreement demonstrated that the parties intended to destroy and fully replace the 2002 loan agreement; (2) Indices such as the date of conclusion of the 2004 revised loan agreement, which occurred at the end of the 2002 loan agreement, new promissy notes and guarantees were issued, United Bank ceased to be a lender; and (3) new terms in the amended 2004 loan agreement, which the 6th circle stated all meant the intention to abolish the 2002 loan agreement. The 6th Circuit discussed and distinguished the official commander from the unsecured creditors of Tousa, Inc. against Citicorp N. Am., Inc.

(In re TOUSA, Inc.), 630 F.3d 1298 (11 cir. .