Smith v. Arthur Andersen LLP

Good Law
421 F.3d 989·2005 WL 2077679·45 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 58·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18752
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 30, 2005Nos. 03-16791, 03-16803, 03-16899California7,684 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wallace, J.

Gerald K. Smith, in his capacity as Plan Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Boston Chicken, Inc. and various related entities (the Trustee) filed an action alleging a variety of claims. Later, the Trustee filed motions seeking district court approval of settlements reached with certain of the *995 defendants and requesting bar orders enjoining the non-settling defendants from asserting certain claims against the settling defendants. Over objection of some of the non-settling defendants, the district court granted the approval motions resulting in this appeal.

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1384 . We hold that we have appellate jurisdiction and affirm.

I.

The Trustee’s 225-page Second Amended Complaint (complaint) asserts 45 separate claims under state and federal law against certain of Boston Chicken’s former officers and directors, attorneys, auditors, and investment bankers. The complaint refers to Scott A. Beck, Saad J. Nadhir, and Mark W. Stephens, who were officers and/or directors of Boston Chicken, as the “Individual Defendants.” Defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Deutsche Banc Securities, Inc.,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.