Yes, Gathering Agreements Can Be Rejected as Executory Contracts (At Least Under One Court’s Interpretation of Texas Law)
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 within the definition of “actual fraud” under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and can sometimes result in corresponding liabilities being non-dischargeable in a personal bankruptcy proceeding.1
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 17, 2016)
On May 4, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a bankruptcy settlement in the form of a tender offer did not violate the principles of the bankruptcy process. See opinion here.
A Supreme Court ruling this week should give creditors a powerful tool to collect their debts from debtors who try to transfer assets before seeking bankruptcy protection. The primary reason an individual may turn to personal bankruptcy is to protect assets from creditor collection while obtaining a “discharge” from debts. Such protection is increasingly necessary where an individual is being pursued by one or more creditors, particularly where those creditors may have obtained (or are about to obtain) judgments against the individual.
A recent case from the 11th Circuit illustrates the procedural perils of litigation arising from a bankruptcy case but ultimately tried in the district court. In Rosenberg v.
In a favorable ruling to creditors and bankruptcy trustees, SCOTUS issued its ruling yesterday in Husky Int'l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz (In re Ritz) addressing a circuit split on whether “actual fraud” requires a debtor in bankruptcy to have made a false representation. The 7-1 majority found that “actual fraud” under §523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes, even when those schemes do not involve a false representation.
Either from our prior posts here and here, or from the great posts from Stone and Baxter’s Plan Propon
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, Case No. 15-145.
Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145
Debtors seek the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to have their debts discharged, but there are exceptions. A creditor can prohibit discharge of a debt “obtained by … actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Today, in a 7-1 decision written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled that a fraudulent conveyance qualifies as “actual fraud.”