Holding: Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Strojnik’s breaches of fiduciary duty to the estate and duty of candor to the Court, even if taken as true, are beyond the scope of special counsel’s required disclosure under Harris. To adopt Plaintiffs’ argued disclosure requirement would run contrary to the public policy rationale underlying Harris. The Court finds that Strojnik was sufficiently candid regarding its role as special counsel for the purpose of pursuing the Suit for the estate, that Strojnik acted within the scope of its appointment, that Debtor had notice, and that the Court approved its appointment. Strojnik is entitled to derived quasi-judicial immunity from Plaintiffs’ suit. The Complaint must be dismissed as to Strojnik.

Order for Matter Taken Under Advisement

Holding: Respondents’ defective Notice of Removal deprives them of standing. The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State Suit and must remand to State Court.

Holding: Order granting motion of Defendants to dismiss count VII, as Trustee failed to state a claim for conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers against Defendants because the Complaint fails to even allege the existence of an agreement between the Debtors and Defendants to commit a fraudulent transfer.