coporate IS DIFFERENT
Fraud
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO436.pdf
In re Tobin, 258 B.R. 199 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2001)
Fraudulent representation imputed to debtor as corporate alter ego not proper basis for nondischargeability determination absent evidence of debtor's personal, knowing involvement in fraudulent scheme.
In re Fischer, 116 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997)
Express novation extinguishes bankruptcy creditor’s fraud claim against debtor based on original contract
In re Saylor, 178 B.R. 209 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995), aff’d, 108 F.3d 219 (9th Cir. 1997)
Fraudulent transfer action created no debt against debtor, thus no dischargeability action.
In re Aubrey, 111 B.R. 268 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990)
State court judgment for fraud and willfulness nondischargeable in bankrupt’s estate.
Fraud
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO436.pdf
In re Tobin, 258 B.R. 199 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2001)
Fraudulent representation imputed to debtor as corporate alter ego not proper basis for nondischargeability determination absent evidence of debtor's personal, knowing involvement in fraudulent scheme.
In re Fischer, 116 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997)
Express novation extinguishes bankruptcy creditor’s fraud claim against debtor based on original contract
In re Saylor, 178 B.R. 209 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995), aff’d, 108 F.3d 219 (9th Cir. 1997)
Fraudulent transfer action created no debt against debtor, thus no dischargeability action.
In re Aubrey, 111 B.R. 268 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990)
State court judgment for fraud and willfulness nondischargeable in bankrupt’s estate.
More u know, More wisdom
Trustee CAN HELP
In re Hansen, 368 B.R. 868, 879-80 (9th Cir. BAP 2007)
Claim preclusion did not apply to creditor’s lawsuit objecting to discharge, where the trustee, who settled a separate lawsuit objecting to discharge, was not in privity with the creditor.
In re Hansen, 368 B.R. 868, 879-80 (9th Cir. BAP 2007)
Claim preclusion did not apply to creditor’s lawsuit objecting to discharge, where the trustee, who settled a separate lawsuit objecting to discharge, was not in privity with the creditor.
IF settlement is not court approved yet..
Rein v. Providian Financial Corp., 270 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001)
Where no court approval was obtained of either a settlement of an adversary proceeding nor a reaffirmation agreement, there was no final order and thus no claim preclusion.
Rein v. Providian Financial Corp., 270 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001)
Where no court approval was obtained of either a settlement of an adversary proceeding nor a reaffirmation agreement, there was no final order and thus no claim preclusion.
Regarding how to discharge debt...CONSUMER DEBT
In re Kullgren, 109 B.R. 949, 953 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990)
In order to prevail on a motion for attorney’s fees under § 523(d), a debtor must prove that:
(1) the creditor requested a determination of the dischargeability of the debt,
(2) the debt is a consumer debt, and
(3) the debt was discharged.
In re Kullgren, 109 B.R. 949, 953 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990)
In order to prevail on a motion for attorney’s fees under § 523(d), a debtor must prove that:
(1) the creditor requested a determination of the dischargeability of the debt,
(2) the debt is a consumer debt, and
(3) the debt was discharged.
Settlement need to be FRAUDULENT
Archer v. Warner, 123 S.Ct. 1462 (2003)
“We conclude that the Archers’ settlement agreement and releases may have worked a kind of novation, but that fact does not bar the Archers from showing that the settlement debt arose out of [fraud], and consequently is nondischargeable...”
Archer v. Warner, 123 S.Ct. 1462 (2003)
“We conclude that the Archers’ settlement agreement and releases may have worked a kind of novation, but that fact does not bar the Archers from showing that the settlement debt arose out of [fraud], and consequently is nondischargeable...”
Regarding settlement
In re Huang, 275 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002)
Waiver of discharge in settlement agreement was ineffective. The settlement agreement had no collateral estoppel effect under § 523(a)(2), where the settlement agreement omitted any mention of fraud or facts supporting fraud.
In re Huang, 275 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002)
Waiver of discharge in settlement agreement was ineffective. The settlement agreement had no collateral estoppel effect under § 523(a)(2), where the settlement agreement omitted any mention of fraud or facts supporting fraud.
RSS Feed
