Absolutely.
In this case, “transfer at undervalue” has now become a defined term in the act. When we use a defined term, we go back to the definition in the definition section. Previously, the word “settlement” was defined. It said, “settlement includes”. Then it had “gift,” “contracted without valuable consideration,” and a few other things.
In this particular instance, the current version speaks to a gift, or settlement without adequate valuable consideration, which means that they were using “without valuable consideration” to restrain the dictionary meaning of “settlement”.
When the defined term has “includes”, you take the definition and you add to it, so it was taking a portion of the defined term.
When they replaced the defined term “settlement” and used “transfer at undervalue” to speak only to things that were a disposition of property with no consideration and without fair market value, what it did was to clearly bring in “gift” and “settlement without valuable consideration”. That only deals with those things, and not with a regular settlement where we have fair market value.
In order to have consistency within the act, we are asking to substitute the defined term, which clearly includes both “gift” and that portion of the defined term “settlement” that is “at undervalue”, and that defined term no longer exists.