Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the present issue of what effect, if any, the appointment of a trustee would have on the limitation period. Id. 22 F.3d at 40. The several courts considering this issue have reached differing results. A Utah bankruptcy court, in Gillman v. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. (In re D-Mart Servs., Inc.), 138 B.R. 985 (Bankr.D.Utah 1992), has held that the subsequent appointment of a trustee in a case commenced under Chapter 11 generates a new two-year period under § 546(a). The debtor in D-Mart had filed for reorganization on December 29, 1987 and operated thereafter as debtor in possession. The case was converted to Chapter 7 seven months later, on July 12, 1988, and a Chapter 7 trustee wa Lumber Corp.), 145 B.R. at 816 (adopting conclusions of D-Mart); In re Carroll Indus., 153 B.R. at 102 (<HOLDING>). Cf. also In re San Joaquin Roast Beef, 7 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the date of the offense is not an element of the charge  a variance between the indictment date and the proof at trial is not fatal so long as the acts charged were committed within the statute of limitations period and prior to the return date of the indictment (B) holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act (C) holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated (D) holding that for causes of action not time barred as of the date of the trustees appointment the limitation period is tolled for an additional two years from the date of appointment (E) holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due
Output (English): holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act