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. intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due.was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction or.without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:.with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor or.The predecessor to this act was called the Utah Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the “UFTA”).Ī transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:
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.