Skip to main content

§ 523(a)(19)

Sullivan, In re--Matthews v. Sullivan

Ruling
Claim based on district court's judgment for violations of federal and state securities laws andfraud deemed nondischargeable. (Bankr. N.D. Ga.)
Issue(s)
Exceptions to Discharge; Types of Debt Excepted; Debt Relating to Securities

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Sullivan, In re--Matthews v. Sullivan Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 10, 2017 , LexisNexis #0817-077

Osborne, In re--Kokas v. Osborne

Ruling
Debt was nondischargeable where the indebtedness owed to plaintiff by debtor was based upon the violation of state securities laws and common law fraud in connection with the purchase of a security. (Bankr. E.D. Tex.)COLLIER BANKRUPTCY CASE UPDATE11
Issue(s)
Exceptions to Discharge; Types of Debt Excepted; Debt Relating to Securities Violations.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Osborne, In re--Kokas v. Osborne Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on April 03, 2017 , LexisNexis #0517-042

Lunsford, In re--Lunsford v. Techs. Servs., LLC

Ruling
Debt to the investor was nondischargeable as debt was caused by debtor's violation ofsecurities laws. (11th Cir.)
Issue(s)
Exceptions to Discharge; Types of Debt Excepted; Debt Relating to Securities Violations; Federal or Common Law.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Lunsford, In re--Lunsford v. Techs. Servs., LLC Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 15, 2017 , LexisNexis #0317-074

Ballard v. Thoennes (In re Thoennes)

Ruling
Debt based on shareholder oppression did not arise from the purchase or sale of a security and was dischargeable.
Issue(s)
Was judgment for "shareholder oppression" nondischargeable as related to the sale of securities?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Ballard v. Thoennes (In re Thoennes) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on September 03, 2015 , LexisNexis #0915-119

In re Friedman

Ruling
Judgment for debtor's fraud in sale of note was nondischargeable.
Issue(s)
Was judgment debt for debtor's fraud in conduct of sale of a note nondischargeable?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Friedman Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 01, 2015 , LexisNexis #0815-018

Maitland v. New Jersey Div. of Taxation (In re Maitland)

Ruling
Tax debt for which debtor filed a late tax return was dischargeable.
Issue(s)
Was tax debt for which debtor filed a late tax return dischargeable?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Maitland v. New Jersey Div. of Taxation (In re Maitland) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on June 10, 2015 , LexisNexis #0715-019

Schlueter v. Caldwell (In re Caldwell)

Ruling
Debt relating to sale of membership interest in LLC that qualified as a security was nondischargeable.
Issue(s)
Was debt relating to sale of membership interest in LLC nondischargeable as resulting from a securities violation.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Schlueter v. Caldwell (In re Caldwell) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on October 25, 2013 , LexisNexis #1113-123

Gilley v. SEC (In re Gilley)

Ruling
Disgorgement consent judgment involved violation of securities laws and was nondischargeable.
Issue(s)
Was consent judgment in favor of SEC in which debtor neither admitted nor denied alleged securities law violations dischargeable.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Gilley v. SEC (In re Gilley) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on August 19, 2013 , LexisNexis #0913-049

Oklahoma Dept of Securities ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox (In re Wilcox)

Ruling
Judgment that debtor Ponzi scheme investors were unjustly enriched was nondischargeable reversed as operators, not debtors, violated securities laws.
Procedural posture

At the behest of appellee state department of securities, judgments were entered against appellant bankruptcy debtors after state courts found early investors in a Ponzi scheme had been unjustly enriched. The debtors appealed the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma that affirmed the decision of a bankruptcy court that the judgments qualified as a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(19).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Oklahoma Dept of Securities ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox (In re Wilcox) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on August 20, 2012 , LexisNexis #0912-052

Sherman v. SEC (In re Sherman)

Ruling
District court erred in reversing bankruptcy court order finding that order for disgorgement of attorneys' fees derived from client's securities violations was dischargeable.
Procedural posture

Appellant debtor challenged a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which reversed a bankruptcy court judgment that certain debt was excepted from the debtor's discharge in bankruptcy.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Sherman v. SEC (In re Sherman) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on September 19, 2011 , LexisNexis #1011-068