Professional Malpractice Action
In Parmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 09-4302, an action against an accounting firm for professional malpractice and fraud, which was removed from Illinois state court, the court affirmed in part the district court's dismissal of the action based on pending bankruptcy proceedings where 1) an 11 U.S.C. section 304 proceeding is a case for the purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1334(b); and 2) so long as the estate at issue in a section 304 proceeding, wherever located, may conceivably be affected by the state law actions, those state law actions are "related to" the section 304 case. However, the court vacated in part where the district court needed to consider whether abstention was mandatory.
As the court wrote: "The questions presented are (1) whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1334(b); and (2) whether the district court properly declined to abstain from exercising that jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). This appeal is taken from judgments of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.) and challenges rulings made by that court and by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Castillo, J.)."
- Read the Ninth Circuit's Decision in Parmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 09-4302