We conclude, in the context of the subject statute, that the term "ineffective" means conditionally valid or, at most, voidable. See Pastimes Publishing Co. v. Advertising Displays, 286 N.E.2d 19 (Ill.App. 1972) (ineffective means voidable); Peck v. Ormsby, 8 N.Y.S. 372 (N.Y. 1889) (ineffective is not equivalent to void). Such an interpretation would mean that any attempted disposition of gaming securities would suffer from a legal impediment pending approval by the gaming commission.

Our predecessors in Calvert Bldg. Const. Co. v. Winakur, 154 Md. 519, 539, 141 A. 355 (1928), and Sakelos v. Hutchinson Bros., 129 Md. 300, 304, 99 A. 357 (1916), flatly held sales void where made in disregard of that statute. Similar holdings under the Uniform Commercial Code are found in Danning v. Daylin, Inc., 488 F.2d 185, 189 (9th Cir. 1973); McKissick v. Foremost-McKesson, Inc., 441 F.2d 811, 815 (5th Cir. 1971); Pastimes Publishing Co. v. Advertising Displays, 6 Ill. App.3d 414, 417, 286 N.E.2d 19 (1st D. 1972); and Starman v. Wolfe, 490 S.W.2d 377, 385 (Mo. Ct. App., St. Louis D., Div. 2, 1973). A similar view is taken in W. Hawkland, A Transactional Guide to the Uniform Commercial Code § 3.0501 (1964); R. Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 6.104:10 (2d Ed. 1970), and Annot. UCC: Bulk Transfers, 47 A.L.R.3d 1114, 1140 (1973). In this case there is no showing that the schedules required under § 6-104 were prepared nor is there any showing that all creditors were actually notified as required by §§ 6-105 and 6-107 — in fact, there is no showing that any creditors were notified.

(See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 26, par. 6-110.) The remedies available to creditors are thus left to the general laws of fraudulent conveyances and can include such diverse remedies as garnishment against the transferee, a levy on the property in the hands of the transferee, a prejudgment attachment, a fraudulent conveyance suit with injunctive relief or other action (see Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 26, par. 6-104, Illinois Code Comment, at 639-41 (Smith-Hurd 1963)), and the court may look outside the Commercial Code — Bulk Transfers for the appropriate remedy ( Pastimes Publishing Co. v. Advertising Displays (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 414, 417; see Froehlich v. J.R. Froehlich Manufacturing Co. (1981), 93 Ill. App.3d 179, 185). The Uniform Commercial Code also provides that an "'[a]ction' in the sense of a judicial proceeding includes recoupment, counterclaim, set-off, suit in equity and any other proceedings in which rights are determined."

Such remedy is contemplated by the bulk transfers act. In particular, the courts may seek remedies outside of the act ( Pastimes Publishing Co. v. Advertising Displays (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 414, 286 N.E.2d 19), including that which cures a defective affidavit simply by making payments to unpaid creditors. (See Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 26, par. 6-104, Uniform Commercial Code Comment 2, at 642 (Smith-Hurd 1963)).

" ( C. E. Marshall Co. v. Leon (1st Dist. 1932), 267 Ill. App. 242, 246.) Under the Uniform Commercial Code — Bulk Transfers, "fraudulent and void" was changed to the term "ineffective" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 26, par. 6-104), which term has been held to mean "* * * voidable at the instance of a creditor of the transferor." ( Pastimes Publishing Co. v. Advertising Displays (1st Dist. 1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 414, 417, 286 N.E.2d 19.) See Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 26, par. 6-104, Illinois Code Comment, at 636-37 (Smith-Hurd 1963). Also to be considered is the fact that the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, in promulgating this uniform act, provided an optional section 6-106 of the 1958 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C. § 6-106 (1958 Official Text)), which reads as follows: