Context: John Aquino and accomplices engaged in a false invoicing scheme, fraudulently extracting millions from two companies, Bondfield Construction and Forma-Con, where Aquino was the directing mind. When the companies entered bankruptcy proceedings, the court-appointed monitor (Ernst & Young) and trustee (KSV Kofman) sought to recover the funds under section 96(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), which deals with "transfers at undervalue."

Key Legal Issues:

• Whether the companies, through Aquino's actions, intended to defraud creditors.
• Whether Aquino’s fraudulent intent could be attributed to the companies under the corporate attribution doctrine.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:

• Intent to Defraud: The fraudulent transfers were made with intent to "defraud, defeat, or delay" creditors, despite the companies being able to pay their creditors at the time.
• Corporate Attribution: Aquino’s fraudulent intent was attributable to the companies because he acted as their directing mind. The “fraud” and “no benefit” exceptions to corporate attribution did not apply in the bankruptcy context, as they would undermine the creditor-protection purpose of the BIA.

Outcome: The false invoicing payments were classified as "transfers at undervalue" and recoverable by the monitor and trustee. Exact amount for monetary award was not specified.