2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-8-2010 

# In Re: QDN LL C P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4210

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " In Re: QDN LL C " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1919. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1919NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 08- 4210 & 08- 4211 

### I n Re : QDN LLC,

D eb t o r S YN E R G IS T IC E Q U IT IE S , L T D .,

Appe l l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N os . 2- 07- cv- 05467 /2- 08- cv- 01107) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember16, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , A L D I SE R T , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: February8, 2010

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Syner gi s t i c Equi t i es , L t d. ( “Syner gi s t i c”) appea l s the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C our t , w hi ch, among ot hert hi ngs , aff i r m ed the B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on that s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on exi s t ed. W e agr ee thatther e i s s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, butN o tab ly , itis th e v a lid ityo f th e f ili n g in C a se N o . 2 th a t m a k e s th e c h e c k iss u e d to 1 Syner gi s t i c a pa ym entt o a cr edi t orw i t hi n t he pr efe r ence per i od. T hi s s eems t o be the m o tiv a tio n b e h in d th is a p p e a l. 2 w e vaca t e and rem and w i t h instruct i on s t o d i sm i ss the rem ai ning cl ai m s becau se Syner gi s t i c does nothave a nyr i ghtt o cont es tan i nvol unt arypet i t i on. I . Fac t s and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound A . F i l i ngs T h is c a se ste m s f

ro m th re e se p a ra te b a n k ru p tcy pe tit io n s. W e d isc u ss th e m b rie f ly to p ro v id e th e re lev a n t co n tex t. T h e f irst p e tit io n w a s a n in v o lu n tar yb a n k ru p tcy pe tit io n f iled a g a in st Q u a lity D i s t r i but i on N etw or k, I nc. ( “Q ual i t yI nc. ”) , on J anuary24, 2007 ( C as e N o. 1) . A C hapt er 7 T rus t ee w as appoi nt ed. A ts om e t i m e dur i ng the pr ocee di ngs , i tw as di s cover ed that I nc. w as ci r cumvent i ng t he bankrupt cypr oces s byoffl oadi ng i t s oper at i ons t o a s ucce s s or f ir m , Q D N , L L C (“ Q D N ” ). A d v e rs a ry p ro c e e d in g s b e g a n a g a in s t Q D N in C a s e N o . 1 and r es ul t ed i n a C ons entO r der , w hi ch i ncl uded l i m i t at i ons on t he ac t i ons Q D N w oul d be perm i t t ed t o t ake. A boutt he s ame t i m e, Q D N i s s ued a c heck t o Syner gi s t i c, a cr edi t or a n d th e a p p e llan t in th is c a se , tha t ap p e a rs to b e a p re f e re n c e p a ym e n t. T h e se c o n d p e tit io n w a s a n in v o lu n tar yb a n k ru p tcy pe tit io n f iled a g a in st Q u a lity D istri b u ti o n N etw o rk, L L C (“Q u ali tyL L C ”), on Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 7 (C ase N o . 2 ). Itap p ea rs 1 t h a tt h e p e t i t i o n wa s me a n tt o b e f i l e d a g a i n s tQDN a n d n o tQu a l i t yL L C. I n d e e d , QDN w as s erved ati t s corr ectaddr es s ( t he s ame addr es s as Q ual i t yI nc. ) , Q D N ’ s fede r al3

id e n tif ic a tio n n u m b e r w a s o n th e f ilin g , a n d Q D N a p p e a re d to c o n te s t th e m a tte r i n c o u rt . I tans w er ed w i t h a s t at ementt hati tw as notthe part ynamed i n t he pet i t i on and thatthe p e tit io n n a m e d a n o n -e x iste n t alle g e d d e b to r. H o w e v e r, Q D N a lso a ttem p ted to b e n e f it fr om t he pr ot ect i ons of an a ut om at i c s t ayi n corr es pondence w i t h C has e B ank af t erthe fil ing o f C ase N o . 2 , b u t pri o r t o the f il ing o f C ase N o . 3 , b yclaim ing that an inv o lun tary pet i t i on w as fi l ed aga i ns ti ti n J une, 2007. O n S e p tem b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , the T ru ste e in C a se N o . 1 f iled a m o tio n to a p p o in t a t rus t ee i n C as e N o. 2. O n Sept ember14, 2007, Syner gi s t i c fi l ed an obj ect i on t o t he appoi nt m entof a trus t ee a l l egi ng t hatthe B ankrupt cyC our tdi d nothave s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on overt he ca s e. T hats ame day , Sept ember14, 2007, the thi r d pet i t i on w as fi l ed byQ D N ( C as e N o. 3) . U nl i ke the tw o pr i orpet i t i ons , t he thi r d pet i t i on w as vol unt aryand fi l ed bythe debt or i t s el f. B . P roce edi ngs T he B ankrupt cyC our thel d hear i ngs on Sept ember17 and 21, 2007, t o deci de w hethert o appoi nta trus t ee i n C as e N o. 2. I n t he i nt er i m , on Sept ember20, 2007, the pet i t i oni ng cr edi t or s i n C as e N o. 2 fi l ed a mot i on t o amend t he pet i t i on t o corr ectthe n a m e to re f

lec t Q D N ’s tru e leg a l n a m e . T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt ru led th a t th e d isp u te in C ase N o . 2 w as sim p lya c ase o f m isno m er, an d w as n o t a j u ri sd ict ion al i ssu e. T h e C o u rt not ed thatt he fe der al I D num berw as i dent i cal , the pr operpart yw as s erved, no one w asW e re c o g n ize th a t S yn e rg istic d isp u tes th e e x iste n c e o f su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n in 2 th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt. A s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , w e a g re e w ith th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt th a t it had j ur i s di ct i on. 4 co n fu sed o r surp ri sed as to the id en ti tyo f th e p arti es in v o lved (i n li g h t of the a d v ersa ry pr ocee di ngs i n C as e N o. 1 as w el l as Q D N ’ s appea r ance i n C as e N o. 2) , and al l ow ed the pet i t i on t o be amended t o corr ectt he name nunc pr o t unc to J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 7 . C a s e s N o s . 2 and 3 w er e cons ol i dat ed, and a trus t ee w as appoi nt ed i n t he cons ol i dat ed ca s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our taff

i r m ed the fi ndi ng of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, aff i r m ed the cons ol i dat i on of ca s es , and af fi r m ed the appoi nt m entof the trus t ee i n t he cons ol i dat ed cas e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he B ankrupt cyC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 157( b) ( 1) t o hear a n d d e ter m in e a c a se u n d e r th e B a n k ru p tcy C o d e . T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n to 2 r evi ew t he B ankrupt cyC our tor der s pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 158( a) ( 1) . W e have juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 5 8 (d). W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons of l aw , i ncl udi ng m a tte rs o f

s ta tu to ry in te rp re ta tio n . I n r e Tow erA i r, I

nc. , 3 9 7 F . 3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c iti n gIn re P ro

f’l In s. M

g m t. , 285 F. 3d 268, 282–83 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our ts atas an appe l l at e courtt o r evi ew the B ankrupt cyC our t , w e r evi ew the B ank rupt cyC ou rt ’s l egal det erm i nati on s de novo , i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , and its e x e rc is e s o f

d is c re tio n f

o r a b u s e th e re o f. Id . ( ci t i ng I n r e Engel , 124 F. 3d 567, 571 ( 3dSyner gi s t i c al l eges t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our ts houl d nothave a ppoi nt ed a trus t ee, 3 sh o u ld n o t hav e c o n so li d ated the tw o inv o lun taryca ses, fa il ed to h o ld an ev iden ti ary h e a r i n g , a n d e r r e d b yc o n s i d e r i n g t h e a n s we rt o th e p e t i t i o n i n Ca s e No . 2 wi t h d r a wn upon t he fi l i ng of the vol unt arypet i t i on i n C as e N o. 3. B eca us e Syner gi s t i c l acks s t a n d i n g t o r a i s e t h e s e o b j e c t i o n s , we e x p r e s s n o o p i n i o n c o n c e r n i n g th e m.

5 C ir . 1 9 9 7 )). II I. A n a ly sis W hil e S ynergi st i c rai ses a hostof is sues, theyessent i al l ydev olve t o tw o clai m s: (1 ) th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt lac k e d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r C a se N o . 2 ; an d (2 ) it m i s handl ed C as e N o. 2. Syner gi s t i c, i n char act er i zi ng i t s cl ai m as an att ack on the 3 s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on of the C our t , i s at t empt i ng t o confe ron i t s el f as a cr edi t ort he “s t andi ng” t o oppos e an i nvol unt arybankrupt cypet i t i on thati tw oul d otherw i s e l ack. I f, as Syner gi s t i c cl ai m s , t he court s l acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, then the B ankrupt cy C o u rt, th e D istric t C o u rt, an d o u r C o u rt w o u ld b e o b lig a ted to n o tice th a t d e f e c t s ua sp o n te a n d d is m is s f

o r w a n t o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . See I

n r e Earl ’s Ti r e Ser v. , I nc. , 6 B . R . 1019, 1 0 2 1

– 2 2 (D . D e l. 1 9 8 0 ), s upers eded by r ul e on othergr ounds , a s r e c o g n ize d in In re Mem or ex Telex Corp. , 2 4 1 B . R . 8 4 1 (D . D el. 1 9 9 9 ). O n the o ther h an d , if w e a re sa tisf ied th a t w e h a v e su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n , S yn e rg istic h a s n o rig h t to p lea d d e f e c ts in th e in v o lu n ta ry p e titio n o r i n th e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt ’s h a n d lin g o f th a t p e titio n . I

d. A . A s a no n- f

i l i ng c r e di t or , Syner gi s t i c has no s t andi ng t o c ont e s t t he f i l i ng of an i nvol untar y bank rupt cy p et i t i on A s a pr el i m i narym at t er , § 303( d) of the B ankrupt cyC ode al l ow s a “ deb t or . . . [t o]6

fil e a n yan sw er to a [n ] [inv o lun tary ] pe ti ti o n . ” 1 1 U . S . C . § 3 0 3 (d) (em p h asis ad d ed ). It is w e ll-es tab lish e d th a t a cr edi t or , i n contr as t , does nothave s t andi ng t o cont es tan in v o lu n ta ry b a n k ru p tc yf ilin g . I n r e Earl ’s Ti r e Ser v. , I nc. , 6 B . R . at1021–22; In re W es t er l ei gh D ev. C or

p. , 1 4 1 B .R . 3 8 , 4 0 (B a n k r. S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 2 ); I n r e N ew E r a C o. , 115 B .R . 4 1 , 4 5 (B a n k r. S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 0 ), a ff’d , 1 2 5 B .R . 7 2 5 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 1 ); In re MacFarl an e W

ebst er A ssocs. , 1 2 1 B .R . 6 9 4 , 7 0 0 (B a n k r. S .D .N .Y . 1 9 9 0 ); I n r e M ans on B i l l ar d, I

nc. , 8 2 B .R . 7 6 9 , 7 7 1

– 7 2 (B a n k r. E .D . P a . 1 9 8 8 ); s ee al s o I n r e C ar den , 118 F .2 d 6 7 7 , 6 7 9 (2 d C ir. 1 9 4 1 ); I n r e Spohn Mot orC o. , 158 F. Supp. 855, 855 ( W . D . Pa. 1 9 5 8 ); I n r e T. J. R onan C o. , 114 F. Supp. 299, 300 ( S. D . N . Y . 1953) . T he fi l i ng of an i nvol unt arypet i t i on i s an adve r s ar i al pr ocee di ng betw een the fi l er s and the debt or , w hi ch m a yc o n te s t th e f

ilin g a t a h e a ri n g . S e e g e n e ra lly 1 1 U .S .C . § 3 0 3 . C o n g re ss c h o se to p re c lu d e c re d ito rs f

ro m o p p o sin g in v o lu n tar yp e tit io n s b e c a u se su c h o p p o sitio n in v a ria b ly w as t o pr ot ecta pr efe r ence ort o gai n s om e unfa i radvant age a tthe expe ns e of other c re d ito rs, c o n tra ryto th e p o licyo f p ro v id in g e q u itab le d istrib u tio n o f a ss e ts a m o n g a ll c re d ito rs . I

n r e Earl ’s Ti r e Ser v. , I nc. , 6 B . R . at1021–22. Syner gi s t i c does notci t e anyauthor i t ythati ndi cat es i thas s t andi ng t o do anyt hi ng m or e than br i ng t he i s s ue of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on t o t he court ’ s at t ent i on. I ti s not t he debt or , and ther efor e under11 U . S. C . § 303( d) and Feder al R ul e of Bankrupt cy P ro c e d u re 1 0 1 1 it d o e s n o t h a v e th e ri g h t to c o n te s t th e in v o lu n ta ry p e titio n o n th e m e ri ts . In d e e d , the o n lyre a so n S yn e rg istic is c o n tes tin g th e in v o lu n tar yp e tit io n a p p e a rs to b e toL im it ed li ab il ityco m p an ies are e li g ible to f il e b an k rup tcyp eti ti o n s b ec au se th eyare 4 s uffi ci ent l ys i m i l art o a corpor at i on and l i m i tr es pons i bi l i t yforthe debt s t o t he capi t al s u b s c ri b e d . See 1 1 U . S . C . § 1 0 1 (9)(A )(i i) ; I n r e 4 Whi

p, LLC , 3 3 2 B . R . 6 7 0 , 6 7 2 (B an k r. D . C o n n . 2 0 0 5 ); In re G i am pietro , 3 1 7 B .R . 8 4 1 , 8 4 4 n .3 (B a n k r. D . N e v . 2 0 0 4 ); In re ICLN D S Not e s Acq uis i t i on , LLC , 2 5 9 B .R . 2 8 9 , 2 9 3 (B a n k r. N .D . O h io 2 0 0 1 ). T h a t is o b v io u s h e re b e c a u s e Q D N h a s f ile d a v o lu n ta ry C h a p te r 1 1 p e titio n in C a s e N o . 3 w i t h o u to b

j e c t i o n a s t o e l i g i b i l i t y. 7 pr ot ecti t s el f fr om havi ng a pr efe r ence voi ded bym ovi ng the pet i t i on dat e t o a l at erdat e, t he verys i tuat i on C ongr es s t r i ed t o avoi d. T hus , w e r evi ew onl ythe ques t i on of s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on. B . T h ere i s sub ject m att er juri sdict i on i n thi s case T he j ur i s di ct i on of the B ankrupt cyC our tal l ow s i tt o “hea rand det erm i ne al l cas es undert i t l e 11. ” 28 U . S. C . § 157( b) ( 1) . E s s ent i al t o anycas e underthe B ankrupt cyC ode i s a debt or , w hi ch i ncl udes anyper s on ( i ncl udi ng a corpor at i on) thatr es i des i n t he U ni t ed St at es . 11 U . S. C . § 109( a) . A cas e nami ng Q D N as the debt orfal l s w i t hi n t he B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. T he compl i cat i on i n t hi s cas e i s w hetherthe 4 B ankrupt cyC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overa pet i t i on nami ng “Q ual i t yD i s t r i but i on N etw or k, L L C ” a s th e d e b to r in ste a d o f “ Q D N , L L C .” S yn e rg istic a rg u e s th a t th is m is id e n tif

ic a tio n is f

a ta l a n d re q u ir e s d is m is s a l o f th e in v o lu n ta ry p e titio n in C a s e N o . 2 . U ndert he fa ct s befor e us , w e di s agr ee. T her e i s no ques t i on t hata debt or( Q D N ) w as br oughtbefor e the B ankrupt cy C our t , and thatQ D N knew exac t l yw hyi tw as ther e. I tw as s erved ati t s addr es s of8

r ecor d, w as i dent i fi ed byi t s fede r al I D num ber , appea r ed numer ous t i m es i n t he B ankrupt cyC our t , and s entatl eas tone l et t ert o a cr edi t ort o i nform i tof the pr ocee di ngs agai ns tQ D N i n C as e N o. 2. T he onl ym i s t ake w as a mi s nom eri n t he i dent i fi cat i on of the debt ori n t he ca pt i on of the ca s e, and thi s w as corr ect ed pr i ort o t he appoi nt m entof a t rus t ee. O t hert han thatm i s t ake, t her e i s no ques t i on thatQ D N w as pr oper l ybefor e and w ith in th e ju risd ictio n o f th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt. M isn o m e r— typ ica llyw h e n a p lain tiff m isn a m e s o r m isid e n tifie s a p a rtyin its pl eadi ngs butcorr ect l ys erves t hatpar t y— i s the cl as s i c exa m pl e of mi s t ake thatcan be c o rre c ted v ia a m e n d m e n t. In su c h a c a se , rela tio n b a c k is a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se th e p a rty th a t w a s s e rv e d is a lr e a d yb e f o re th e c o u rt . See 3 J a m e s W m . M o o re e t a l., Mo o re’s Feder alP r act i ce § 1 5 . 1 9 [3 ][d ] (3d ed . 2 0 0 9 ) [h ere inaf ter Mo o re’s ] . I n cont es t ed pr ocee di ngs i n t he B ankrupt cyC our t , R ul e 7015 pr ovi des forthe appl i cat i on of Feder al R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 5 . See Fed. R . B ankr . P. 7015. R ul e 15, i n turn, i s the appr opr i at e ave nue t o corr ectm i s nom er s vi a amendm entt o avoi d t he s i tuat i on w her e a le g itim a te le g a l c la im is s q u e lc h e d b ya p a rt ym is ta k e n ly id e n tif y in g th e p a rt yto b e u s e d . Mo o re’s § 1 5 . 1 9 [3 ][d ]. A s re c o g n ize d b yth e D istric t C o u rt a n d th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt, a m isn o m e r is appr opr i at el yr emedi ed byamendm enti n cas es w hen a pl ai nt i ff s ues a par enti ns t ead of a su b sid iar y , a c o rp o ra tio n in ste a d o f a p a rtn e rsh ip , a b u ild in g in ste a d o f its c o rp o ra te o w n e r, o r a c o rp o ra tio n in liq u id a tio n in s te a d o f its s u c c e s s o r. See id . § 1 5 . 1 9 [3 ][d ] &9

nn. 37–39 ( ci t i ng cas es ) . I n anyevent , m i s nom eri s s i m pl ynota mat t eri m pl i cat i ng s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. W e fi nd Syner gi s t i c’ s s ol e ca s e ci t at i on i ndi cat i ng a l ack of s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n u n p e rs u a s iv e . S p e c if ic a lly, I n r e W es tvi l l e D is tr i but i on & Tr ans por tat i on , 293 B . R . 101 ( B ankr . D . C onn. 2003) , deal ts ol el yw i t h a purpor t ed vol untar y pet i t i on f iled o n b e h a lf

o f a n o n -e x iste n t d e b to r. T h e n o n -e x iste n t d e b to r h a d a n a m e sim ilar to th a t o f a n o th e r e n tity th a t n e v e r i n te n d e d to f ile a b a n k ru p tc yp e titio n . W e stv ill e does not addr es s t he s i tuat i on i nvol vi ng an i nvo l un tary p e tit io n f o r re lief , an d it ex p licitly r ecogni zed thatt he tw o s cena r i os ar e “f undament al l ydi ffe r ent . ” I d. at102. I n t he ca s e of an i nvol unt arypet i t i on, a s cr i vener ’ s err orcan be amended bya fi l erthr ough t he norm al process of am end m ents . T he pol i cyconce r ns behi nd W e stv ill e d o n o t a p p ly in o u r c a s e . W e stv ill e w as m ost c o n c e rn e d w ith n o n -f

ilers a ttem p tin g to “ v italiz e a n o n -e x istin g e n titya n d th e n f o rc e it i nt o bankrupt cyw i t houtobs ervi ng t he s t atut orypr edi cat es fori nvol unt arycas es . ” I d. T hats i m pl yi s nott he ca s e her e bec aus e w e have an i nvol unt arycas e under§ 303 that obs erved the s t atut or ypr edi cat es . T he debt orw as pr oper l ys erved and di d, i n fac t , s how u p in c o u rt n o tw ith sta n d in g th e sc riv e n e r’s e rro r in n a m in g th e e n tity . T h e o n lyp a rty o b je c tin g to th e a p p o in tm e n t o f a tru s te e a t th is p o in t is S yn e rg is tic , a n o n -f ilin g c re d ito r. T h u s, w e p u t W

e stv ill e as i de.W hil e i tl acks st and i ng even t o m ake the argum ent, w e no t e t hat Synergi st i c al so 5 at t empt s t o i nvoke ourdeci s i on i n I n r e O w ens C or ni ng , 419 F. 3d 195 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , and the p ri n ciples o f su b stan ti v e c o n so li d ati o n . T h at arg u m en t com p let elym isses the m ark beca us e thi s cas e has not hi ng t o do w i t h s ubs t ant i ve cons ol i dat i on. T hi s i s bor ne outi n Syner gi s t i c’ s R epl yB r i ef a t8–9. 6 10 O th e r p o licyc o n c e rn s ra ise d b yS yn e rg istic a re a lso u n a v a ili n g . F irst, th is is n o t a 5 c a se o f a “ Jo h n D o e ” d e b to r n a m e d f o r p u rp o se s o f

a n ill icit, se c re t b a n k ru p tcy; a ll in v o lv e d k n e w th e id e n tityo f th e d e b to r, th e d e b to r a p p e a re d , an d e v e n S yn e rg istic r ecogni zes t hati ti s m aki ng a s t r i ct l yt echni cal obj ect i on. 6 Second, t he ana l ogyt o A r t i cl e 9 of the U ni form C om m er ci al C ode i s s i m pl yoff poi nt . T he gr ant i ng of s ecur i t yi nt er es t s r equi r es s t r i ctcompl i ance on t he name of the d e b to r b e c a u se it i s in ten d e d to g iv e n o tice to o th e r p o ten tial c re d ito rs. In c o n tra st, u n til the o rde r fo r reli ef

is en tered , an inv o lun taryca se o n lyinv o lves the p eti ti o n ing cre d it o rs and the debt or . Fur t herm or e, A r t i cl e 9 i s notj ur i s di ct i onal

— an err ori n name does not depr i ve a c our tof j ur i s di ct i on, butonl yact s t o depr i ve a nonc om pl i antcr edi t orof s ecur ed s t a tu s a n d p r i o r i t y. T hir d, an ad dit i on al reas on w hythese po l i cycon cerns ar e m ore m uted i n the case o f a n in v o lu n tar yf

ili n g is g iv e n b y§ 3 0 3 (f ). U n les s a n d u n til a n o rd e r f o r re lief is g r a n t e d , a n i n v o l u n t a r yf i l i n g h a s n o e f

f e c to n th e a f

f a i r s o f th e d e b t o r . 1 1 U. S . C. § 3 0 3 (f). T h u s, a d eb tor ac tuallyserv ed an d ac tuallyap p ea ri n g to co n testan inv o lun tary proceed i ng cann ot di spute s ubj ectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on w hen an am end m ent l at er correct s a11

m isno m er. N o r ca n p o tential cre d it o rs w h o w ere n o t am o n g tho se to fil e a n inv o lun tary pet i t i on. T he part yt he B ankrupt cyC ode i s conce r ned about , pr i ort o t he appoi nt m entof a tru ste e a n d th e e n tryo f

a n o rd e r f

o r re lief , is th e d e b to r. It w o u ld b e a d if f e re n t sto ryif t he debt orw er e notm ade a w ar e, l eadi ng t o a true “s ecr etbankrupt cy , ” and a n or derfor re lie f e n te re d w ith o u t g iv in g th e d e b to r a c h a n c e to o b je c t, a ll b e c a u s e o f

a m is n o m e r. H er e, every one knew w ho t he debt orw as ; betw een Case N o. 1 and C as e N o. 2, ther e w as no confus i on as t o w hi ch ent i t yw as befor e the C our t , and the C our t ’ s s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on i s notati s s ue. I n s um , Syner gi s t i c’ s at t empt t o cas tthi s cas e of mi s nom eras a ques t i on of s ubj ect m at t erj ur i s di ct i on fai l s . H er e, t he i nvol unt arydebt orw as pr oper l ys erved, appea r ed num er ous t i m es i n cour t , and i nform ed a c r edi t orof C as e N o. 2. M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence t o s ugges tany one w as m i s l ed. A s s uch, ther e i s no doubtthatthe B ankrupt cy C our thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. * * * * * W e ther efor e af

fi r m the D i s t r i ctC our ton t he i s s ue of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, butvaca t e and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s the appe al on al l ot hergr ounds r ai s ed bySyner gi s t i c.