An ABI Committee Newsletter
|
|
| Vol 24, Num 1 | March, 2026
|
|
|
by Jack R. O’Connor, Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC, Chicago
Gabrielle G. Palmer, Onsager Fletcher Johnson Palmer LLC, Denver
|
|
Hello to all of our members, and a warm thank you for being part of the Young & New Members Committee. We are lucky to have such a dedicated team this year, all of whom have worked hard to foster professional development opportunities for young and new ABI members. It’s been a great year serving together, and we look forward to the committee’s continued success in 2026!
Winter Leadership Conference
On Nov. 13, 2025, the Young & New Members Committee hosted a pre-Winter Leadership Conference Virtual Meet & Greet, during which committee members discussed what to expect at December’s Winter Leadership Conference, the “dos and don’ts” of networking, and how to prepare for the conference, among other things. The Virtual Meet & Greet, which featured ABI President Hon. Bruce Harwood following his recent retirement from his
judgeship for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire, was an excellent opportunity for members to connect in advance of the conference.
Annual Spring Meeting
The Young & New Members Committee is collaborating with the DEI Committee to host a panel at the 2026 Annual Spring Meeting (April 23–25, 2026, in Washington, D.C.) focused on intergenerational issues in the law. More information about this panel and the conference will be available in the coming weeks.
Get Involved
Newsletter Contributions. Members are invited to submit short articles (approximately 1,000 words) for our newsletter, which is published two to four times per year. If you have a topic idea and are interested in contributing to a future issue, please contact our Newsletter Editor, Amanda L. Haugland, at amanda.haugland@davisgraham.com.
Read Full Article Online →
|
|
|
by Danielle Scott, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (S.D. W.Va.), Charleston
|
|
Prestige is a science fiction thriller by author Christopher Priest that was later adapted into film in 2006. It explores the rivalry between two magicians who are obsessed with creating the perfect illusion. Throughout the movie, the recurring question, “Are you watching closely?,” challenges the audience to question their perceptions of reality.This line of dialogue not only captivates the audience, it also reflects the evolving dilemma posed by deepfakes.
Naturally, we tend to rely on observation through our senses, such as sight and hearing, to interpret the world around us. But what happens when a set of algorithms
cunningly exploits that tendency?
What Is a Deepfake, and How Does It Work?
A deepfake is described as an image, video or audio recording that is generated or manipulated by artificial intelligence (AI) to emulate the mannerisms of an individual. Note that deepfakes are distinct from AI-generated text language models like ChatGPT. The most common technology behind deepfakes is generative adversarial networks (GANs).
GANs use two AI models in tandem: the forger, and the detective. The forger creates the image based on the request from the user. It shows the image to the detective. The detective points out all the weaknesses with the image; it has trained on thousands of images of what the face should look like. The forger creates a new image based on the detective’s feedback. The two models engage in a zero-sum game, the forger exponentially improving
the image until it deceives the detective into accepting that the image is real. The outcome is an image indistinguishable from reality to the untrained eye.
Read Full Article Online →
|
|
|
Danielle Scott
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
(S.D. W.Va.)
Charleston
|
|
|
by Dillon Ebner, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (W.D. Va.), Harrisonburg
|
|
“[S]ometimes a debtor is liable for fraud that she [or he] did not personally commit.” That was the Supreme Court’s guiding principle in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley when the Court held that § 523(a)(2)(A) bars discharge of a debt for fraud even when the debtor was not personally at fault. The decision has raised questions about whether similar reasoning applies to other sections of 523 — most notably § 523(a)(4), which excepts from discharge debts “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” After Bartenwerfer, is a debtor barred from discharging a debt arising from another’s fiduciary defalcation even if the debtor was not a fiduciary at all? This article explores that question and how courts have begun to approach it.
Before Bartenwerfer, courts approached § 523(a)(4) with a fairly settled understanding
that a debt was nondischargeable under the section only if the debtor personally had been acting in a fiduciary capacity. Courts have long interpreted § 523(a)(4) narrowly, limiting “fiduciary capacity” to those relationships arising from express or technical trusts. In practice, this narrow interpretation has made it difficult to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(4).
The Supreme Court’s application of § 523(a)(2)(A) in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley potentially shifted how courts should interpret other provisions under § 523. The case involved a married couple who jointly sold a home. Although only one spouse had committed the underlying fraud, both were held liable under state law. After they filed for bankruptcy, the uninvolved spouse argued that the debt should be discharged because she had not personally engaged in any fraudulent conduct under §
523(a)(2)(A). The Supreme Court disagreed.
Read Full Article Online →
|
|
|
©2026 American Bankruptcy Institute
All Rights Reserved
American Bankruptcy Institute
99 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
Email Preferences | View Online
|
|
|
|
|
.png)
