Fraudulent transfer and alter ego cases seem to almost always be factually dense and, therefore, difficult to summarize in a blog post. Since I've written about the essential elements of Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and alter ego claims in the past, I've decided simply to post the Court's opinion in Wine & Canvas v. Weisser, 2017 WL 2905026 (S.D. Ind. 2017) here.
United States District Judge Pratt authored a thorough, twenty-page opinion dealing with plaintiff's motion for turnover of trademarks and for funds received as royalties in connection with the pending proceedings supplemental. The two bases of the motion were (1) fruadulent transfer under Indiana Code 32-18-2-14 and 15 and (2) alter ego. The opinion spells out why the Court denied the plaintiff's motion on both theories. The Court found that the plaintiff did not show that the subject transfer was fraudulent or voidable. Further, the Court concluded that company 2 was not the alter ego of company 1.
For more on the law and the Court's reasoning, please review the opinion, which is a good illustration of how a court will walk through all of the relevant factors toward a decision denying relief.