McAfee Urges Dismissal of Cyberguard.com Fraudulent Transfer Claim
James Linlor’s claim that McAfee fraudulently transferred the cyberguard.com domain to Musarubra fails and should be dismissed, said McAfee’s motion Tuesday (docket 5:23-cv-00385) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. Linlor alleges McAfee cybersquatted on the domain,…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
preventing him from starting a similarly named cybersecurity consultancy. McAfee asserts Linlor is suing the wrong defendant because it transferred the domain to Musarubra in 2021 with the divestiture of its enterprise cybersecurity business. Linlor doesn’t allege “a single element of fraudulent transfer, nor can he,” said McAfee. A fraudulent transfer under the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA) involves a transfer by the debtor of property to a third person undertaken with the intent to prevent a creditor from reaching that interest to satisfy its claim, it said. To establish an actual fraudulent transfer, plaintiffs must plead that a transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor, it said. “Here, McAfee and Musarubra were not debtors or creditors under CUFTA and Linlor can’t plead actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud, it said. McAfee’s periodic renewal of the domain and its eventual transfer of rights to the domain in connection with sale of its enterprise business “does not permit a fraudulent transfer claim,” it said. To hold otherwise would “contravene the general rule” that a property owner may sell all the rights he holds in property, it said.