For the purpose of assessing insider liability under 11 USC 548, liability can arise if a transferee was an insider either: (i) when the trnsfer was made or (ii) when the obligation was incurred pursuant to which the transfer was made.

Where a director resigned and received funds pursuant to a separation agreement (in lieu of receiving payment pursuant to a prior employment agreement), the payments were fraudulent transfers since the payments were in excess of what the director would have been entitled to under the termination provisons in his prior emplyment agreement.

The director's liability for the fraudulent transfer obligation was not a "loss" under the company's D&P policy.

In cases involving D&O policy proceeds, the bankruptcy court must balance the harm to the debtor if the stay is modified with the harm to the directors and officers if they are prevented from executing their rights to defense costs. Even in cases where the D&O policy proceeds were considered property of the estate, courts have nonetheless granted relief from stay to allow the insurer to advance defense costs payments when the harms weigh more heavily against the directors or officers than the debtor.

Where the director's need for defense costs ("A-side coverage") was real and immediate, and the likelihood of future indemnity liability ("B-side coverage") was speculative, the bankruptcy court did not err in lifting the automatic stay to permit the insurer to advance defense costs.