Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Innocent Business Partner's Fraud Liability Survives Bankruptcy
"[S]ometimes a debtor is liable for fraud that she did not personally commit," held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 22, 2023, when the debtor's business partner had deceptively obtained money by fraud, thereby making the innocent partner liable for a nondischargeable debt under Bankruptcy Code (Code) §523(a)(2)(A) ("any debt from money "obtained by … fraud" not dischargeable and survives debtor's bankruptcy). Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023). Unanimously affirming the Ninth Circuit and resolving "confusion in the lower courts," the Court explained that the common law and precedent precluded an innocent debtor from discharging a debt obtained by the fraud of the debtor's agent or partner. Id. at *8. The innocent debtor here thus could not use bankruptcy to avoid liability. More important, the decision has practical significance for corporate officers and others in an agency or partnership relationship. The decision also may have serious consequences for corporate Chapter 11 debtors whenever a "domestic governmental unit" is a creditor.
Relevance
The Circuits have been split as to whether an innocent business partner's liability could be discharged in bankruptcy. See, e.g., In re M.M. Winkler & Assoc., 241 F.3d 746, 749 (5th Cir. 2001) (debts that arise from fraud cannot be discharged); In re Villa, 261 F.3d 1148, 1151 (11th Cir. 2001) (debt cannot be discharged when fraud is imputed to the debtor under agency principles). But see, Sullivan v. Glenn, 782 F.3d 378, 381 (7th Cir. 2015) (debt non-dischargeable only if debtor knew or should have known of fraud); In re Walker, 726 F.2d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1984) (same).
Facts
The debtor (D) and her contractor "then-boyfriend" bought a house "as business partners," intending to renovate and to resell the property. D "was largely uninvolved" in the renovation directed by her partner. When selling the house to the plaintiff (P), the debtor and her boyfriend-later-husband completed a mandatory disclosure statement, falsely claiming they knew of no leaks or other defects and that the necessary repairs on the property had been made under applicable law.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?