October Term 2015 · Docket 15-145

Does actual fraud require a specific lie to a creditor?

The dispute centers on whether a debtor must prove a specific lie to a creditor to block discharge.

Official caption
Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Dvoretzky argued Congress added actual fraud to the discharge bar in 1978.

    He stated his interpretation gives meaning to that amendment.

    Ms. Murphy argued Section 523(a)(2) applies to debts fraudulently induced.

    Ms. Harrington argued the lower court erred in requiring intentional misrepresentation.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Husky International Electronics seeks to discharge a debt. The creditor argues the debt arose from actual fraud. The lower court required proof of a specific misrepresentation. the side that brought the case argues this requirement is too narrow.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 1, 2016.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Husky wants the Court to reject the specific misrepresentation requirement.

Ritz wants the Court to keep the specific misrepresentation requirement.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Husky argues the statute covers any debt obtained by actual fraud.

Ritz argues the statute requires proof of a specific fraudulent inducement.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if the debt belongs to the transferor or the creditor.

Justice Kennedy asked if state law fraud is required for veil piercing.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of bankruptcy discharge bars. It determines which debts survive bankruptcy proceedings. Creditors rely on this standard to protect their interests. Debtors rely on it to achieve a fresh start.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON