  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
of proving that property belonged to the estate.
In re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., LLC, 439 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2006) (Bankruptcy court did not err in awarding costs, attorneys' fees, compensatory damages and punitive damages totaling $6.4 million pursuant to § 303(i) based on bad faith filing of involuntary petition. The evidence of bad faith included that the petitioning creditor knew or should have known that his claim was disputed, intended to cause the debtor harm and did not know how the amount of the debt allegedly owed him was calculated.)
Banka A.D., Beograd v. Superintendent of Banks (In re Deposit Ins. Agency), 482 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2007) (New York Superintendent of Banks was not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from § 304 petition of foreign banks to recover assets held by the Superintendent. Assuming, without deciding, that the Eleventh Amendment would bar the petitions, relief is available under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which provides that immunity does not apply if a complaint against a state officer alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective relief. The federal law allegedly violated is § 304, in that the Superintendent has refused to turnover property allegedly belonging to the banks, and the relief sought, turnover of the property and an injunction against state insolvency proceedings, is prospective.)
Biesek v. Soo Lin R.R. Co., 440 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. Mar. 6, 2006) (District Court properly granted summary judgment to debtor's employer in separate action under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60. Debtor had intentionally omitted the claim against the employer from his statements and schedules. District Court found that the separate action was barred by judicial estoppel. Circuit Court found judicial estoppel inapplicable because the chose in action belonged to the Trustee, not the debtor, as a pre-petition claim. The Circuit Court nonetheless affirmed summary judgment because the Trustee had not abandoned the chose in action and thus the debtor could not pursue the action.)
Estate of Spiritos v. One San Bernardino County Superior Court Case
Numbered SPR02211, 443 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2006) (Creditor of a bankruptcy estate does not have standing to bring a claim on behalf of the estate without first obtaining authorization from the trustee. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that numerous parties had conspired to conceal assets belonging to her husband's bankruptcy estate. The Court found that these claims were being asserted on behalf of the estate, and § 323 vests in the trustee the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate. The Court also noted that the Code provides a
