  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Agency), 482 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2007) (New York Superintendent of Banks was not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from S 304 petition of foreign banks to recover assets held by the Superintendent. The federal law allegedly violated is S 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. SS 51-60. Debtor had intentionally omitted the claim against the employer from his statements and schedules. 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.)
In re Morgan, 375 B.R. 838 (8th Cir. Sept. 24, 2007) (Order entered in one case removing Chapter 13 trustee from that case was affirmed, but order entered in second case removing the trustee from all cases in which she was serving was reversed because adequate notice of the conduct constituting cause for removal under S 324 was not provided. Notice that the court is considering removing a trustee must set forth specific facts that would form the basis for removal. The notice in the first case met this requirement. The notice in the second case did not meet this requirement because it only included a general statement that the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered in the first case constituted the basis for the notice. As to the first case, the bankruptcy court's finding that the trustee had testified falsely was not clearly erroneous. Additionally, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that a conflict of interest arose when an adversary proceeding with apparent merit was filed against the trustee in a case where she was serving as trustee.)
In re Smith, 507 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2007) (Chapter 7 debtor's objection to replacement of special counsel to prosecute personal injury action was not a sufficient basis to deny trustee's motion under S 327(a). The best interests of the estate would be served by replacement because the existing attorney had filed a state court action in the debtor's name despite an order from the bankruptcy court that the action be filed in the trustee's
