Husky Int'l Elec., Inc. v. Ritz, No. 14-20526 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseHusky filed an adversary proceeding against debtor, objecting to the discharge of a contractual debt owed to Husky by Chrysalis - of which debtor was a shareholder. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that the bankruptcy court properly denied all relief sought by Husky because the debt was dischargeable. In this case, the statutory exceptions to discharge raised by Husky are inapplicable, and Husky cannot rely upon general principles of equity to expand those exceptions. Although another provision of the Bankruptcy Code, Section 727(a)(2), may have applied to redress the conduct of which Husky complains, Husky failed to raise that provision.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 10, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.