Being a ‘Net Winner’ in a Ponzi Scheme Doesn’t Automatically Mean Nondischargeability

March 15, 2024

Being a ‘Net Winner’ in a Ponzi Scheme Doesn’t Automatically Mean Nondischargeability

Alleging that a debtor realized an ‘impossibly high’ rate of return in a Ponzi scheme isn’t enough to state a claim of nondischargeability for ‘actual fraud.’

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.amazonaws.com/Tyndall.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

Nationwide Judgment Recovery Inc. v. Tyndall (In re Tyndall), 23-00094 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. March 6, 2024)

Case Name

Nationwide Judgment Recovery Inc. v. Tyndall (In re Tyndall)

Case Type

Business

Court

4th Circuit

North Carolina

North Carolina Eastern District

Bankruptcy Tags

Fraud

Fraudulent Transfers

Practice and Procedure

Consumer Bankruptcy

Discharge/Dischargeability

Business Reorganization

Comments

Submitted by DONALDBAILEY on March 18, 2024 - 18:55

Does this hold up under Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 21-908 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 22, 2023), where the Supreme Court held a debt non-dischargeable based on the intent of the debtor's partner, without evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor? Here, the money was obtained through the fraudulent intent of the Ponzi scheme operator.