Evans Law, PC is a full service corporate and securities firm focused on serving the diverse needs of the financial services industry.
Securities
We advise companies, issuers, underwriters and private equity funds in state and federal securities matters in transactions ranging with private placements, financing agreements and joint ventures.
Broker-Dealer Services
Founded by former CEOs, CCOs and general counsel to FINRA members,our broker-dealer practice is more than just defense with services designed to be proactive.
Investment Adviser Services
Counsel to registered investment advisers, including retail, private fund and dual registration status, in formation, operations and regulation with the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Federal, State and Regulatory - Investigations and Enforcement
Representing corporations and individuals confronted with inquiries from regulatory and securities enforcement agencies, including the SEC, state securities regulators and FINRA.
Business & Corporate Law
Providing a broad range of services to corporations, joint ventures, partnerships and limited liability companies in all phases of the business cycle.
previous arrowprevious arrow
next arrownext arrow
Slider

Castle Arch Real Estate Company Litigation

D. Ray Strong, as Liquidating Trustee et al. v. Kirby D. Cochran et al.

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

Summary:

After an October 2011 bankruptcy filing of Castle Arch Real Estate Company, LLC (“CAREIC”), a Chapter 11 Trustee was appointed and the trustee took assignments of creditor and equity holders of CAREIC and its affiliates’ causes of action against former management, officers, directors, insiders and certain other individuals pursuant to a Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation. Generally, the Trustee alleged that certain assignor investors and creditors lost millions of investments due to the alleged fraudulent conduct and other malfeasance, rather than the global economic meltdown. Causes of action included:

(1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty,
(2) Violation of Utah, Nevada, Arizona and California Securities Law (state securities fraud),
(3) Violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder (federal securities fraud),
(4) violations of § 20(a) of the Exchange Act (control person liability),
(5) common law fraud,
(6) negligent misrepresentation,
(7) civil conspiracy,
(8) violation of Utah and Nevada state RICO laws,
(9) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A),
(10) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B),
(11) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Utah Code Annotated §§ 25-6-5(1)(a) and 25-6-8,
(12) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Utah Code Annotated §§ 25-6-5(1)(b) and 25-6-8,
(13) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. §544(b) and Utah Code Ann. §§ 25-6-6(1) and 25-6-8,
(14) Avoidance of Preferential Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b),
(15) Recovery of Avoided Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. §§ 550 and 551,
(16) Disallowance of Claims—11 U.S.C. § 502,
(17) Subordination – 11 U.S.C. § 510(c),
(18) Constructive Trust and
(19) Unjust Enrichment and Disgorgement.

Representation:

Outcome:

Based on limited budget defense and prior to completion of representation, successful dismissal with prejudice of:

(1) federal securities fraud law claims (violation of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5 and control person liability under § 20(a) of the Exchange Act),
(2) common law fraud,
(3) negligent misrepresentation, and
(4) various bankruptcy avoidance claims (Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A), Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B), Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Utah Code Annotated §§ 25-6-5(1)(a) and 25-6-8, Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Utah Code Annotated §§ 25-6-5(1)(b) and 25-6-8, Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. §544(b) and Utah Code Ann. §§ 25-6-6(1) and 25-6-8, Avoidance of Preferential Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) and Recovery of Avoided Transfers Under 11 U.S.C. §§ 550 and 551).

In addition, successfully defended against Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on claim of Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah state securities law violations and dismissal of the majority of the assigned state securities law claims based on affirmative defense of statute of limitations/statute of repose under state securities law.

Sample Case Files:

Interested in our services?
We would appreciate hearing from you.