March 08, 2017
Notice to Admit Laid Basis for Collateral Estoppel When Consent Judgment Didn’t Qualify
Consenting to judgment failed to avoid imposition of collateral estoppel on dischargeability.
6th CircuitFebruary 28, 2017
Judgments for Malice in California Aren’t Nondischargeable Automatically
Ninth Circuit again shows deference to the BAP in making the circuit’s bankruptcy law.
9th CircuitFebruary 10, 2017
Sixth Circuit Pens Major Decision on Duty to Investigate Suspicions of Fraud
Madoff and Sixth Circuit have differing formulations about the ‘good faith’ defense for a recipient of a fraudulent transfer.
6th CircuitFebruary 09, 2017
Breach of Corporate Fiduciary Duty Is Not Automatically Nondischargeable
‘Fiduciary duty’ is more narrowly defined in Section 523(a)(4) than in corporate law.
4th Circuit, North Carolina, North Carolina Eastern DistrictFebruary 03, 2017
Fifth Circuit Concurrence Advocates Voiding Arbitration Agreements Involving Fraud
Circuit Judge Higginbotham sees arbitration as an instrument of fraud.
5th CircuitJanuary 27, 2017
Clever Pleading Won’t Allow Individual Creditors to Sue, Madoff District Judge Says
Decision draws the line between common claims and those particular to individual creditors.
2nd Circuit, New York, New York Southern DistrictNovember 29, 2016
D’Oench Duhme Gives FDIC Broad Protection from Fraudulent Transfer Suits
Bank need not be a party to a secret agreement for D’Oench Duhme defense to apply.
7th Circuit, Illinois, Illinois Northern DistrictNovember 14, 2016
Identity of Asbestos Claimants Disclosed Only to ‘Ferret Out’ Fraud
Even aggregate information about asbestos claims cannot be used for lobbying.
3rd Circuit, DelawareNovember 08, 2016
Bankruptcy Judge Reads Husky Narrowly on Dischargeability for Fraud
For nondischargeability under Section 523(a)(2)(A), a fraudulent transfer must give rise to the debt, not occur beforehand.
11th Circuit, Florida, Florida Northern DistrictOctober 27, 2016
Discharge Denied for Omitting Name of a Retirement Account
Scheduling the amount of an asset isn’t enough. The name must be shown, too.
1st Circuit