The amici submit that asking whether a misrepresentation is an essential element of an “actual fraud” under section 523(a)(2)(A) disguises Petitioner’s false presupposition, namely, that a debt arising from a transfer made to hinder, delay or defraud creditors is capable of being within the scope of section 523(a)(2)(A)’s “actual fraud” provision and thus excepted from a discharge later received by a chapter 7 debtor under section 727(a). That false presupposition leads to an unnecessary inquiry whether a misrepresentation is required for a fraudulent transfer to constitute an “actual fraud” under section 523(a)(2)(A). The amici would avoid that entire inquiry. They submit that the “actual fraud” provision is wholly inapplicable to fraudulent transfer debt. This is because the discharge of a debt arising from a transfer made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is exclusively regulated by sections 727(a) and 727(b), which discharge such debt, unless incurred within one year before the bankruptcy.
United States Supreme Court
Docket Number 15,145
Brief for Professors as Amicus Curiae, Husky International Electronics Inc. v. Daniel Lee Ritz Jr.,
Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/703