The lawyers at MCG are experts in this area of the law and stay apprised of new developments to best serve their clients. There is a substantial body of case law in Utah and in other jurisdictions interpreting the UVTA and UFTA, setting forth the circumstances in which a creditor can and cannot undo a debtor’s transfer. To determine “actual intent,” consideration may be given to a number of factors, including whether the transfer was made to an insider or a family member, whether the debtor retained possession of the property transferred after the transfer, or whether the transfer was disclosed or concealed, among other things.
#Shop alter ego code
If a creditor believes that a debtor has transferred assets to avoid a debt, the creditor may find relief in the Utah Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, Utah Code § 25-6-101 et seq (the “UVTA”).
This firm has substantial experience representing both creditors and debtors in relation to claims of voidable transfer and alter ego. Such transfers are called “voidable transfers” or “fraudulent transfers.” A creditor may sue the debtor to try to undo such transfers.Īdditionally, a creditor may allege that an entity is an “alter ego” of an individual and try to “pierce the corporate veil” and seize the assets of the individual(s) behind the entity to satisfy the debt. But sometimes transactions involving a debt go south, and the parties to the transaction may be forced into litigation concerning the debt.Ĭreditors trying to enforce an obligation from an individual or entity may assert that the debtor tried to avoid a debt by transferring assets shortly before or after the debt arose. Complex Litigation Regarding Voidable and Fraudulent Transfers, and Alter EgoĬomplex business transactions frequently require individuals and entities to loan and borrow money.