In a resounding 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved an existing split among the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, determining that "actual fraud" under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not require...more
On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Husky International Electronics v. Ritz held that the phrase “actual fraud” under section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code may include fraudulent transfer schemes that...more
Lessons from Sabine - In March, Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman held that Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. satisfied the standards for rejection of several gathering and handling agreements between Sabine and its midstream...more
The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case that will be a powerful tool for lenders dealing with borrowers who engage in schemes to avoid payment of their debts, such as an improper transfer of their assets...more
Tennessee Chancery Court Denies Motion to Dismiss $164 Million RMBS Suit Brought by Tennessee Pension Fund - On May 24, 2016, Chancellor Carol L. McCoy of the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, declined to...more
On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal...more
On May 16, the bankruptcy world of “actual fraud” got larger. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court addressed what it recognized was a deepening circuit split regarding the interpretation of “actual...more
On May 16, 2016 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding the meaning of “actual fraud” under the Bankruptcy Code. Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz represents a win for creditors by making it easier to...more
On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Husky International Electronic, Inc. v. Ritz. The opinion is a favorable development for creditors because it expands the types of fraudulent conduct that can...more
In its recently issued decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court has clarified that intentionally fraudulent transfers designed to hinder or defraud creditors can fall...more
May is usually a busy month on the Supreme Court before the justices head off for some summer R&R. It is historically a time when many opinions are issued, and May 2016 has been no exception. ...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in six cases today: Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339: The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (“FCRA”) imposes a number of requirements regarding the creation and...more
The Supreme Court’s Decision: On May 16, 2016, in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Daniel Lee Ritz, Jr., Case No. 15-145, the Supreme Court held that the term “actual fraud” in § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy...more
In a decision rendered on May 16, 2016, in the case of Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the exception to bankruptcy discharge for debts incurred through actual fraud applies to...more
On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz (No. 15-145), holding that the term “actual fraud” in § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code (one of the discharge exceptions)...more