Interesting--you say fraudulent transfer law still applies, so I'm wondering how, in the event of a dispute, the deposit into such an account would ever NOT be a fraudulent transfer. Does the bank's promise to pay the beneficiary constitute reasonably equivalent value TO THE DEPOSITOR? Or is the trick here the 4-year SoL, with the depositor assuming that no one will try to unwind the deposit until it's too late. This seems like a targeted spendthrift trust law--and I wonder if the drafters have avoided that terminology only because of the controversy some of those laws have created in places like Michigan.

This is a terrific paper. I commented on it as a "senior commentator" at a recent junior faculty conference here in Chicago, and I was surprised at the degree to which I found the constitutional and historical insights fascinating. Christine is a talented researcher and writer, and she has discovered the most intriguing historical coincidence here--check it out!

Congrats likewise to Brook Gotberg https://law.missouri.edu/person/brook-e-gotberg/ at the University of Missouri, Columbia, another bankruptcy scholar on the 2019 list!