Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistFeaturesBankruptcyLitigation

Fourth Circuit: Debt Incurred As a Result of Willful and Malicious Injury May Be Dischargeable

By Rudolph J. Di Massa Jr. and Drew S. McGehrin
September 01, 2019

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a debt incurred as a result of a willful and malicious injury may nevertheless be dischargeable notwithstanding the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(6). TKC Aerospace v. Muhs (In re Muhs), 923 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2019). The court found it to be of no consequence that a debtor's conduct giving rise to the injury, without more, was shown to be intentional; rather, the debtor must also have intended to cause injury to the creditor. In so holding, the TKC court has issued guidance to creditors seeking recovery of high-dollar lawsuits; proceedings that oftentimes precipitate bankruptcy filings.

Background

Charles Taylor Muhs was employed by TKC Aerospace, Inc. (TKCA) as a vice president of business development. In that role, Muhs had access to proprietary information: Muhs' employment contract prohibited him from disclosing confidential information or competing with TKCA for a period of six months after the termination of his employment. During his tenure with TKCA, Muhs assisted TKCA to compete for, and win, contracts with the Department of State for the modification of certain aircraft.

Muhs left his employment with TKCA, and began working with a competitor. Shortly thereafter, the competitor (with the help of Muhs) competed for, and was ultimately awarded, certain contracts with the Department of State for the modification of the same aircraft in connection with which TKCA had provided services. In response, TKCA initiated parallel lawsuits — the first being brought in Alaska against Muhs individually — alleging various causes of action, including Muhs' breach of Alaska's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The second was commenced by TKCA against Muhs' new employer in Arizona, similarly alleging various causes of action including breach of Arizona's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Muhs was a witness, but not a defendant, in the Arizona action, which proceeded to trial first.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.