Bound by circuit precedent, the Eighth Circuit held that a prior receivership does not cleanse the bankruptcy estate of the in pari delicto defense.

A trustee has standing and a claim for fraudulent transfer just because a fraudulent transfer erodes assets of the bankrupt estate.

A Ninth Circuit dissenter would require the trier of fact to make a finding that the fraudster acted with actual intent to defraud.

Criminal activities of an agent don’t take the agent’s actions outside of the scope of authority.

Chicago’s Bankruptcy Judge Timothy Barnes explained eight years ago why bankruptcy stays do not require personal jurisdiction, unlike injunctions in receiverships.

Fifth Circuit says that the court must have obtained personal jurisdiction over a third party in a receivership to enforce an injunction. Is the same true for the automatic stay and the discharge injunction in bankruptcy? Is there no injunction before there’s personal jurisdiction?

A Supreme Court nonbankruptcy decision means there is no right to a jury trial in the claims-allowance process in bankruptcy.

The Tenth Circuit BAP inferred a requirement of justifiable reliance on nondischargeability for actual fraud.

Alleging that a debtor realized an ‘impossibly high’ rate of return in a Ponzi scheme isn’t enough to state a claim of nondischargeability for ‘actual fraud.’

A division of marital property on consent to someone other than a spouse might be a fraudulent transfer.