Legal Opinion · Dissent

Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 16, 2016No. 15-145Published

1DissentJustice Thomas

The Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt ... for money, property, [or] services ... to the extent obtained by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The Court holds that “actual fraud” encompasses fraudulent transfer schemes effectuated without any false representation to a creditor and concludes that a debt for goods may “sometimes” be “obtained by” a fraudulent transfer scheme. Ante, at 1585-1586, 1589. Because § 523(a)(2)(A) does not apply so expansively, I respectfully dissent.

I

In my view, “actual fraud”,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Field v. MansSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Staples v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  5. Cohen v. De La CruzSupreme Court of the United States · 1998

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API