### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 9, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16637

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 0 3
- 2 2 5 5 2
- C V- MGC K A R M A I N T E RN A T I O N A L , S .A .R .L ., a L u x e m b o u r g c o rp o r a tio n , K E I T H F . C O O P E R , a s r e s p o n s ib le p e r s o n o f C H S E le c tr o n ic s , I n c ., P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s B E RN D K A R R E , P A T R I C K M A T Z I N G E R , J O A Q U I M R I B E I R O , R A O U L S T E L L A , T H I E R R Y V A N D O R E N , R O B E R T W I N D I S C H , M O T T A R H O L D I N G , N .V ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 9, 2006)Ho no ra bleRic ha rd Mil ls, Un ite d St ate s D istri c t Judg efo r t heCe ntra l D ist

ri c t of I lli no is, * sitti ngby designation. The a ppellants, KI SA and Cooper, initially appealed ag ainst eleven defendants. On 1 Februar y 27, 2006, we grante d a motion by the appe llants to dism iss their appeal ag ainst one of these de fenda

nts, Deutsche F inancial Ser vices (UK) Limited. On Febr uary 28, 2006, we grante d a motion by thea pp e lla nts to dism iss the ir

a pp e a l ag a ins t an a dditi on a l de fend ant, Ga brie la Ing old. The appe llants further inf ormed the c ourt at oral argument that they have entere d se ttl e me nts wi th t

wo morede fend ants , Anto nis Pa paionno u a

nd Ric ha rd Jonk e r, and

int e nd to mov efo r dism iss a l of

the ir a pp e a ls ag a ins t th os ede fend ants .

2 B ef ore B IR C H and M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M: K arm a I nt ernat i on al , S
. à. r. l
. (K IS A ), and K ei th C oo per, the bank rupt cy trust ee for C H S E l ec troni cs , Inc. (C H S ), ap peal fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of t h ei rs t a t e l a w c l a i m s a ga i ns tB e r nd K a r r é , P a tr i c k M a t z i nge r , J oa qui m R i be i r o, R a o u l S t e l l a , T h i e r r y Va n Do r e n , R o b e r tWi n d i s c h , a n d Mo t t a rHo l d i n g , N. V. 1 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d th e p la in tif f s ’ c la im s b a s e d o n a f

in d in g th a t it coul d n otexer ci se subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on ov erei ther pl ai nt i ff’ s c l ai m s. A ft er thor ough r e vi e w , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt p ro pe r l y di s m i s s e d the a c t i on. K I S A ’s c la im s w e r e n o t “r e la te d to ” C H S ’s b a n k ru p tc y in a m a n n e rth a t w o u ld
s u p p o r tb a n k ru p t c y j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 28 U
. S. C. § 1 3 3 4 ( b )
. A n y r e c o v e r y K I SA
m i ghtm a ke on i t s cl ai m s w o ul d f l ow t o C H S ’ s ba nkrupt c y e s t a t e onl y by vi r tue of
a c o n tr a c tu a l r e l a t i o n s h i p be t w e e n CHS a n d KI SA’ s c u r r e n to wn e r , Eu r o p a I T, p r o m is i n g C H S a s h a r e o f th e litig a tio n p r o c e e d s . T h is r e la tio n s h ip is to o r e m o te to3

s u p p o r t “r e la te d to ” ju r is d ic t i o n u n d e r§ 1 3 3 4 ( b ) . “R e la te d to ” ju r is d ic tio n is approp ri at e onl y w h en “t he ou t com e of the proceedi ng coul d con ce i vabl y have a n ef fe cton the es t at e bei ng adm i ni st er ed i n b ankrup t cy . ” M i l l er v . K em i ra , Inc. (I n re L e m c o G y ps um , I nc . ) , 910 F
. 2d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( quo t i n g P a c or , I nc . v. H i gg i n s ( I n r e P a c or , I nc . ) , 743 F
. 2d 984, 994 ( 3d C i r . 1984) )
. T hi s c a s e doe s not
s a t i s f y tha ts t a nda r d. A s f or C H S ’ s ow n c l a i m s , the y w e r e pr e m i s e d noton i nj ur i e s s uf f e r e d by C H S , b u t o n in

ju r ie s s u s ta i n e d b y K I S A . C H S la c k s s ta n d in g to s u e f o rin ju r ie s to KI S A. S t a n d i n g r e q u i r e s th a ta p l a i n t i f f d e m o n s tr a t e a n i n

j u r y i n f a c tt o i t s o wn i nt e r e s t s . S e e , e . g. , S i e r r a C l ub v. M or t on, 405 U
. S
. 727, 734–35 ( 1972) ( “ [ T ] he

‘ i nj ur y i n f

a c t ’ t e s t. . . r e qui r e s tha tthe pa r ty s e e ki ng r e vi e w be hi m s el f am o n g the i n j u red
. ”). K IS A ’ s l o ss o f co n tro l o v er i t s su b si d i ari es a n d o th e r a sset s w as a l o ss t o K I SA , n o ta l o s s t o CH S. F i n al l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret io n in d i sm i ssi n g th e case
w ith o u t g r a n tin g t h e p l a i n t i f f s le a v e to a m e n d th e irp le a d in g , f o rit w a s c le a rin th is
c a s e tha t the j ur i s di c t i ona l de f i c i e nc y l a y i n the f

a c t s of the pl a i nt i f

f s ’ c a se, n o t t he t ech n i cal i t i es o f th ei r p l ead i n g s. T h e j u d g m e n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I R ME D.