• office locations
    Bluffton, SC map
    Bluffton, SC Office
    The Plaza at Belfair
    4 Clarks Summit Drive
    Suite 200 | Bluffton, SC 29910-4993
    843.815.2171  Main | 843.815.5991  Fax
    Charleston, SC map
    Charleston, SC Office
    100 Calhoun Street
    Suite 400 | Charleston, SC 29401
    843.723.7831  Main | 843.722.3227  Fax
    Charlotte, NC map
    Charlotte, NC Office
    Bank of America Plaza
    101 South Tryon Street
    Suite 2610 | Charlotte, NC 28280
    704.347.1170  Main | 704.347.4467  Fax
    Columbia, SC map
    Columbia, SC Office
    1221 Main Street
    Suite 1800 | Columbia, SC 29201
    803.799.9800  Main | 803.753.3278  Fax
    Greenville, SC map
    Greenville, SC Office
    Poinsett Plaza
    104 South Main Street
    Suite 700 | Greenville, SC 29601
    864.271.4940  Main | 864.271.4015  Fax
    Hilton Head Is., SC map
    Hilton Head Island, SC Office
    Shelter Cove Executive Park
    23-B Shelter Cove Lane
    Suite 400 | Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
    843.785.2171  Main | 843.686.5991  Fax
    Myrtle Beach, SC map
    Myrtle Beach, SC Office
    Founders Centre
    2411 Oak Street
    Suite 206 | Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
    843.444.1107  Main | 843.444.4729  Fax
  • contact us
      No   Yes  

News Room


Ritz Might Give Fraudulent Conveyance Transferees FitsAuthored by: Michael H. Weaver
May 17, 2016

Related Information




The United States Supreme Court clarified in Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. ____(2016) that “actual fraud” as used in Section 523(a)(2)(A) is broad enough to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes and does not require a false representation in order for a debt to be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

In Ritz, a supplier of electronic components (Husky) sold product to Chrysalis Manufacturing Corp. who racked up an outstanding debt of approximately $164,000. At the time, Daniel L. Ritz, Jr. was a director and owned at least 30% of Chrysalis’ stock.  Rather than paying the outstanding debt owed to Husky, Ritz “drained” Chrysalis of its assets by transferring them to other entities he controlled.  Husky subsequently sued Ritz for the debt arguing the transfers constituted “actual fraud” under Texas law.  Ritz then filed for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7.

Undaunted, Husky commenced an adversary proceeding in Ritz’ bankruptcy case arguing, among other things, that the intercompany transfers constituted “actual fraud” and the debt was non-dischargeable under Section 523(a)(2)(A). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court decision and held that a necessary element of “actual fraud” is a false representation.

The Supreme Court reversed concluding that Congress did not intend for its use of the term “actual fraud” in Section 523(a)(2)(A) to require a false representation in order for a debt to be non-dischargeable.  Rather, “actual fraud” is much broader and includes fraudulent conveyances that can occur without a false representation.  The impact of this decision is yet to be seen; however, individuals who receive a fraudulent conveyance and subsequently file for bankruptcy may find themselves defending more non-dischargeability complaints going forward.