actual intent to defraud creditors is proven, the conveyance will be set aside regardless of the adequacy of consideration given.”). Id. The Correcting Opinion attempts to rectify the misstatement of the requirements for a claim under § 276 made in the Kovler 2000 Opinion, but by that time, the proverbial horse had already left the barn. Between the Kovler 2000 Opinion and the issuance of the Correcting Opin ion, the court in Manhattan Inv. Fund had picked up the Kovler decision, stating: Under N.Y.D & CL section 276, a cause of action must allege fraudulent intent on the part of the transferor as well as the transferee. See Sullivan v. Messer (In re Corcoran), 246 B.R. 152, 161 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (emphasis added); Gentry v. Kovler (In re Kovler), 249 B.R. 238, 243 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). “Fraudulent intent on the
holding that mutual mistake is ground for reformation when as here the minds of the parties have met contractually but because of a mutual mistake the written contract between the parties is wanting in expression or execution to evince the actual and binding contractual intent of the parties holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties holding that both the lack of mutual assent and the indefiniteness of contract terms negate the existence of a contract holding that nyd  cl requires mutual fraudulent intention on the part of both parties to the transaction