*2 contending Conti- 1332(a)(2), U.S.C. § Before CUDAHY hold the funds promise to its EASTERBROOK, Judges, nental broke Circuit He for dam- asked subject to his order. SNEED, Judge.* Circuit Senior * Circuit, ting by designation. Sneed, sit- of the Ninth Joseph T. Hon. 304(b)(2). equal deposit The
ages
the amount
receiver did not file a
granted
interest.
district court
plus
under
so the Bank does
Bank,
summary judgment
holding
to the
immunity
get
judicial
turnover
damages
that Ma could not establish
be-
provided,
order would
but the omis-
money
cause the
went to
receiver and
*3
against
sion seems to work for rather than
creditor,
he
its
thence to Ma’s
so
received
Ma: had the receiver filed suit in this coun-
difficulty
this conclusion
value.
304(b)(2)order,
try to obtain a
the costs
§
affidavit,
springs from Ma’s
which informs
of administration would have been even
Bank)
(without
us
contradiction from the
higher
they
than
were.
expenses
gathering
that the
receiver’s
selling
property
fast!,
the
consumed about
rejoins.
Not so
Ma
If the
value,
half of its
and that a combination of
ancillary
receiver had filed an
action under
court costs and receiver’s fees leaves little
304, he
by
would have been met
the
§
any
if
to turn over to the creditor. Given
the
defense that
court should
posture
the
of the case and the lack of an
petition
the
dismissed
creditor’s
with
detailing
report from the receiver
official
appointing
nothing
out
a receiver.
in
Yet
custody,
in
disposition of the funds
suggests
304
that an American court will
§
precious
that Ma received
we must assume
indulge
appoint
a collateral attack on the
ac-
against
little credit
on
ment of a receiver. Courts of the United
if
of the receiver’s efforts.
It is as
count
foreign judgments provided
States enforce
Tang
his hands on a
horse
the receiver laid
parties
opportunity
that
had the
to
in transit:
the creditor
later smashed
foreign
present
their claims to
tribunals
in
no more than the
would allow settlement
following procedures designed to secure a
pottery, and Ma
of the shards of
value
justice. E.g.,
sound administration of
Hil
injury equal to the difference
would suffer
113, 202-03, 16
Guyot,
ton v.
159 U.S.
S.Ct.
the horse whole
rubble.
between
139,
(1895);
would have been principle of the that a collateral because 542(b). A of 11 U.S.C. out ado virtue § foreign judgment possible attack on a good in faith turns assets stakeholder who foreign jurisdiction, when the court lacks a trustee is not answerable for over to Industries, Inc., Roster v. Automark 640 acts, subsequent even if trustee’s (7th Cir.1981),and Ma that F.2d 77 stresses deplete the assets. Restatement greatly in in 1987 a court vacated (Second) 542 does Trusts 321. Section pro of failure to because serve trustee, 11 apply foreign to a but not personally. parte Fong cess on Ma Ex Sze proceedings authorizes ancil U.S.C. 304 (H.K.Ct.App.). No. 77 One ob Ming, 1987 lary foreign bankruptcy cases. Once analysis, the Bank stacle to this which does (the generic “foreign representative” statu mention, appointment trustees, receivers, is that the of a not tory term “judgment”; is not a well like) petition, may direct files a the court assets, steps leading judg- procedural to a to surrender the the stakeholder 1076 house, lived at his daughter, who still recognized in the United ment should be (where he now in him Switzerland S.S. called See Cunard prior to service. States case; Ma AB, resides) F.2d told him about Services v. Salen Co. Reefer a firm Cir.1985); daughter engage In re Enercons (2d authorized his 457-58 (4th him, did. and she Inc., represent F.2d solicitors Virginia, complication is that
Cir.1987). agreement with signed further a retainer One had Kong may have 29, 1985, than a little more May the receiver firm on the lo- because of of the authority (“jurisdiction”) after the commencement two months there; remin principles recites cation Ma’s affidavit bankruptcy case. de- do jurisdiction rem quasi facts; he was says that these person of all over pend jurisdiction on bank- “not aware seriousness *4 Ry. v. Southern See Canada cry claimants. far this is a proceedings”, but ruptcy 363, 527, 27 3 S.Ct. Gebhard, 109 U.S. not aware saying that he was from parties (1883). None L.Ed. 1020 unim- Hong Kong had an proceedings. either, so we shall of anything makes a bank- adjudicate to Ma peachable claim (cid:127) press on. resided his estate: Ma rupt administer and left substantial ingredi- in and process is an of Although service doc-' using travel term he fled as that when jurisdiction behind personal ent of Colony; the States, of by not all the Crown uments issued in the United often is used by are a of service him requirements against was entered judgment the technical collateral attack. had for a grounds Hong Kong court that sufficient knowledge; A designed produce jurisdiction. to subject-matter personal Service require usually do may petition under although acting rules on a judge district very sure to make in order technical formal service determine try not to 304 would § a dismiss knowledge, and courts knowledge service, of Ma’s given questions of has not se- been proper service case when the power of conceded substantive to a pertinent cured, jurisdiction the sort adjudicate the claims. to foreign court the depends on whether attack collateral pro if had filed the receiver So constitutionally adequate service is —that 1985, have he ceeding under 304 would § a method uses is, plaintiff whether he money. Indeed entitled to been actual no- produce to calculated reasonably default, Ma by for might well have had Pizzutti, 48 276 U.S. v. tice. Wuchter either complaint that allege in the does not (Although (1928). 446 72 L.Ed. S.Ct. where Bank knew his or the the receiver by our notions Kong is not bound Hong He had July of 1985. in June and abouts foreign judg- recognition process, due on file Hong address changed the as comity, and Hilton matter of ments is a argu at oral When asked Bank. with the will not enforce explains United States he did replied that ment, counsel for mini- the bare without obtained from any communication whether not know although it requirements mum notice— have reached Ma— or Bank could receiver niceties on the additional does not insist something mailed they had perhaps unless jurisprudence.) domestic Notice Kong! his home address at his mailed to Process was hardly Chicago would by publication reasonably calcu- This is Kong residence. Ma, that do not believe helped have we (as notice, especially when produce lated to under ancillary proceeding an § anyone has he has not told here) party inability to track stalled be forever where). so, (and, if permanently moved debtor, regular use of down Craigsville Distrib- v.Co. Virginia Lime living outside debtors concerns Cir.1982) (4th Co., F.2d 1366 uting States. the United is constitution- (mail address known last persons rationally may insist that Banks sufficient). Ma not receive did ally actions foreign receivers file claiming to be journey to notice, he treated because an been If the receiver had vacation, under had but he than a more Canada as had been diverted or if the funds impostor, proceeding. His knowledge of the actual points, stantial merit to these but do between Continental and somewhere receiver, legimate retroactively the absence of an order un- not seem to me to then 304(b)(2) would have left the Bank on the unauthorized release of the funds der § the Bank. hook. See Restatement 321. But genuine, and turned out to be I respectfully therefore dissent to the money. far as the estate received the So extent indicated. concerned, only difference be- Ma is procedure the informal the Bank tween
used and a formal under § opportunity wage
was the lack of an appoint- attack on the receiver’s
collateral opportunity
ment. As such an would have only
been worthless to Ma would administering the es- raised the costs Culp, and Brad Candida MESTAYER tate, procedures the Bank followed did Plaintiffs-Appellants, anyMa loss. not cause v. Affirmed.
WISCONSIN PHYSICIANS SERVICE CUDAHY, Judge, concurring in CORPORATION, Circuit INSURANCE dissenting part: part and County, Defendants-Appel Milwaukee lees. majority has taken its “horse” over The jumps here with the abandon of a true No. 89-1504. managed steeplechaser. it has Somehow Appeals, Court of United States slip by what seems to me the real stone Seventh Circuit. is, course, The on the course. Bank wall Illinois, deposit contract
located Argued Jan. explicitly subject to Illinois and was made 22, 1990. Decided June legal absolutely There is no federal law. the Bank to release funds at basis for foreign unless and
request of a petition has filed under 11
until a been ancillary authorize section 304 to
U.S.C. point, At
proceedings in Illinois. direct the surrender
judge Illinois might have cost the funds. That this something certainly good not a
the estate waiving requirement. To
reason for deposi- willy-nilly ship their
allow banks foreign on demand to receivers
tors’ funds requests will subse- hope
in the prove legitimate very seems to me
quently policy indeed.
bad attempts gallop around majority barrier here confident-
the fundamental that, asserting had the receiver made an
ly pursuant court
application to the district receiver’s cre- certainly accepted have been
dentials would
despite Alternatively, the service defect. notes, majority mayMa lack
as the stand-
ing to sue because of settlement with creditors. There be sub-