USCA1 Opinion
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 96-2195
DAVID L. PRINTY,
Appellant,
v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.,
Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Evan Slavitt, with whom Joseph S.U. Bodoff, and Hinckley, Allen,
____________ ___________________ _________________
& Snyder were on brief for appellant.
________
Mary DeNevi, with whom Bingham, Dana & Gould LLP were on brief
___________ ___________________________
for appellee.
____________________
April 10, 1997
____________________
BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge. The overarching
BOWNES, Senior Circuit Judge.
_____________________
issue in this bankruptcy case is whether an arbitration award
of $1,009,820.00, made by a panel of the National Association
of Securities Dealers to appellee Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
against appellant David L. Printy is a non-dischargeable debt
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The district court
affirmed an opinion of the bankruptcy court holding, on a
summary judgment motion, that the debt was non-dischargeable.
We affirm. There are a number of subsidiary issues which we
address in the course of our opinion.
Because the appeal is from the grant of a motion
for summary judgment, our review is de novo on all issues.
_______
Hope Furnace Assocs., Inc. v. FDIC, 71 F.3d 39, 42-43 (1st
____________________________________
Cir. 1995); Alexis v. McDonald's Restaurants of Mass., 67
____________________________________________
F.3d 341, 346 (1st Cir. 1995); In re Varrasso, 37 F.3d 760,
_______________
762-63 (1st Cir. 1994).
I.
I.
THE FACTS
THE FACTS
_________
We start with the facts, keeping in mind the
strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).1 Printy and his two
____________________
1. The rule states in pertinent part:
The judgment sought shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a
-2-
2
sons were the co-trustees of The Andrea L. Printy Family
Trust, (the Trust) which had been established in 1986 after
the death of Printy's wife. Printy was an experienced
investor and knowledgeable in the finance field. At the time
of discovery in this case he was a business consultant with
eighteen years' experience in financial services. He had
been issued a broker's license and had held management
positions in several financial services companies.
On August 26, 1992, Printy transferred the Trust's
account to the office of Dean Witter in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. The record shows that Printy made all the
decisions about the Trust; the sons play no part in this
case. Dean Witter is a national broker-dealer in securities.
It is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and is a member of the National Association of Securities
Dealers. The account was opened in the name of the Trust and
funded with a deposit of $50,000.00.
The account executive at Dean Witter in charge of
the Trust account was Michael Krmpotich. He and Printy were
acquainted. Printy had tried to persuade Krmpotich to join a
broker-dealer company in New Ulm, Minnesota, with which
Printy had been affiliated. It was Krmpotich who had
solicited the Trust account.
____________________
judgment as a matter of law.
-3-
3
Printy executed an Active Assets Account Agreement
with Dean Witter, effective September 30, 1992. Under the
terms of the agreement, any controversies relative to the
account were subject to arbitration. The Active Assets
Account permitted the holder to buy and sell securities. The
account holder could also write checks on, or receive wire
transfers from, the Account. Additionally, the securities
held in the account could be used as collateral for borrowing
funds from Dean Witter "on margin" in order to purchase
additional securities or for other reasons. The amount of
money Dean Witter would permit an account holder to borrow on
margin was calculated based on the value of the assets held
in the account. Under the agreement, if the Trust owed
money to Dean Witter for margin borrowing or other reasons,
Dean Witter was entitled to a security interest in any
securities or property held in the Trust's account.
In early September of 1992, Dean Witter received
the following assets from the Trust: a U.S. Treasury Note
and stock holdings in: Baxter International, Inc., Marion
Merrill Dow, Inc., Vital Heart Systems, Inc., Eastman Kodak
Co., Weyerhaeuser Co., Bank America Corp., and J. P. Morgan &
Co. In addition to these assets, Dean Witter received
150,000 shares of Health Concepts, Inc. and an interest in
MCI Medical Seed Limited Partnership. Printy was the
president, secretary, and a shareholder of Health Concepts.
-4-
4
He knew that the stock was not traded on any exchange or
over-the-counter market and had very little value, if any.
The bankruptcy judge points out in connection with Printy's
bankruptcy schedules that in Schedule B - Personal Property -
Printy gave a zero value to his holdings in Health Concepts
and did not discuss the stock at all in the liquidation
analysis section of his Disclosure Statement submitted with
his Plan of Reorganization.
As part of its services, Dean Witter sent Printy
monthly statements detailing and summarizing the Trust's
assets. As of September 30, 1992, the Dean Witter statement
showed the market value of the Trust's assets to be
$191,533.33, with a borrowing limit of $141,104.50. The
statement did not reflect the receipt of the Health Concepts
stock or the interest in the MCI Medical Seed Partnership.
Next comes the event that led to this law suit.
The Dean Witter statement for the month of October 1992
showed receipt by the Trust on October 28, 1992 of 150,000
shares of Coastal HealthCare stock with a value of
$3,637,500.00. Coastal HealthCare stock is publicly traded.
In his deposition testimony Printy stated that he did not
authorize the purchase of the Coastal HealthCare stock and
never received stock-purchase confirmation slips. The reason
for this obviously mistaken increase of over three and one
half million dollars in the asset value of the Trust was a
-5-
5
computer error by Dean Witter. The Trust's virtually
worthless Health Concepts shares had been given the computer
code for Coastal HealthCare shares, thus attributing to the
Trust ownership of Coastal HealthCare stock, which it did not
own.
On November 16, 1992, Printy sent a fax to the
Trust's account broker, Krmpotich, and his assistant, Lynn
Jorgenson, asking that 15,000 shares of Coastal HealthCare be
delivered to him but left in the name of the Trust.
Jorgenson informed Printy that Dean Witter could not deliver
anything but the entire holding of 150,000 shares. Printy
authorized the delivery of the 150,000 shares. In due time,
he received a certificate for 150,000 shares of Health
Concepts, not the Coastal HealthCare shares he had requested.
The computer mix-up between Health Concepts and
Coastal HealthCare continued through November of 1992. The
November 1992 statement showed that 150,000 shares of Coastal
HealthCare valued at $3,712,500.00 had been debited from the
account. As a result, the total asset value of the Trust
shrunk to $100,475.00 from the October value of
$3,775,925.00.
Printy returned the 150,000 shares certificate of
Health Concepts to Dean Witter on December 1, 1992. The
computer continued on its merry way in the wrong direction.
The Dean Witter December 1992 statement showed the Trust's
-6-
6
receipt on December 2 of 150,000 shares of Coastal
HealthCare, with an increase in asset value from $100,475.00
to $4,984,275.00.
The December statement, however, showed more than
the return of the Coastal HealthCare stock to the Trust
account. It showed that Printy purchased a total of 22,409
shares of stock in twelve companies and withdrew through wire
transfers or checks, $262,501.11 from the account. In
January of 1993, Printy bought a total of 16,763 shares of
stock in eight companies and withdrew $373,670.14 from the
account. In both months, the Coastal HealthCare stock was
used to calculate the authorized limit for margin borrowing
and these purchases and withdrawals were made against these
erroneously inflated margin limits.
It is true, as Printy asserts, that Krmpotich and
other brokers from Dean Witter urged Printy to make stock
purchases on the basis of the Trust's borrowing limits. But
none of the brokers at Dean Witter knew of the error that
inflated the value of the Trust's assets. They assumed that
Dean Witter's monthly statements were accurate. The only one
who knew the monthly statements were grossly inaccurate was
Printy. In his deposition Printy testified that he had
questions about how his account was being handled. But he
never told Krmpotich that he did not own any stock in Coastal
-7-
7
HealthCare and that the authorized borrowing limits were
wrong.
Dean Witter finally corrected the error in the
February 1993 statement. The 150,000 shares of Coastal
HealthCare, with a value of $2,962,500.00, were debited from
the Trust account, and the 150,000 shares of Health Concepts,
with no value, were credited to it. Dean Witter also made a
margin call. After the margin call, the Trust's account had
a deficit of $600,230.82 that was not repaid to Dean Witter.
II.
II.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
_________________
On March 30, 1993, Dean Witter commenced an
arbitration proceeding against Printy, his sons, and the
Trust before the National Association of Securities Dealers.
The Statement of Claim consisted of eight counts, which
included counts for theft and receiving stolen property,
common-law fraud, violations of Minnesota securities law,
common-law conversion, and common-law replevin. Dean Witter
sought $603,548.00 in compensatory damages, plus interest and
attorney's fees, against all respondents. Punitive damages
were sought against Printy only.
Printy responded to the Statement of Claim and
raised a number of affirmative allegations. The defense
consisted of denial of wrongdoing and shifting the blame to
Dean Witter.
-8-
8
The arbitration award was issued on January 20,
1994. It found Printy, his sons as co-trustees, and the
Trust liable for compensatory damages in the amount of
$634,820.00 plus interest, from February 1, 1993, through the
date of payment of the award. The arbitration panel also
foundPrinty liableforpunitivedamagesintheamountof$375,000.00.
Printy filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code prior to Dean Witter having the
arbitration award confirmed. Dean Witter obtained relief
from the automatic stay imposed under the Code. On January
30, 1995, the Hennepin County District Court for the Fourth
Judicial District of Minnesota confirmed the arbitration
award. Dean Witter filed an adversary proceeding against
Printy in bankruptcy court on August 24, 1994.
III.
III.
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
________
The first issue is whether the bankruptcy debt
falls under 523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy
Code. Section 523 of the Code provides in pertinent part:
523. Exceptions to discharge
523. Exceptions to discharge
(a) A discharge under section 727,
(a)
1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of
this title does not discharge an
individual debtor from any debt--
(2) for money, property, services,
(2)
or an extension, renewal, or refinancing
of credit, to the extent obtained by--
-9-
9
(A) false pretenses, a
(A)
false representation, or actual
fraud, other than a statement
respecting the debtor's or an
insider's financial condition;
. . .
(6) for willful and malicious injury
(6)
by the debtor to another entity or to the
property of another entity;
(Footnote omitted).
Printy argues that the sections are mutually
exclusive and the district court erred in proceeding under
(a)(6). This is an ingenious argument but it is convincingly
rebutted by the words of the statute and the case law. There
is no indication in 523 that Congress intended these two
sections to be mutually exclusive, nor does the legislative
history of the statute so suggest.
Printy candidly admits that, "[a] number of cases
have either applied both provisions to fraud claims or have
-10-
10
indicated an inclination to do so."2 The cases do hold as
Printy says.
Both parties have referred us to Grogan v. Garner,
________________
498 U.S. 279, 282 n.2 (1991), which states:
We therefore do not consider the
question whether 523(a)(2)(A) excepts
from discharge that part of a judgment in
excess of the actual value of money or
property received by a debtor by virtue
of fraud. See In re Rubin, 875 F.2d 755,
___________
758, n.1 (CA9 1989). Arguably, fraud
judgments in cases in which the defendant
did not obtain money, property, or
services from the plaintiffs and those
judgments that include punitive damages
awards are more appropriately governed by
523(a)(6). See 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)
(excepting from discharge debts "for
willful and malicious injury by the
debtor to another entity or to the
property of another entity"); In re
______
Rubin, 875 F.2d, at 758, n. 1.
_____
____________________
2. Printy cites the following cases for this proposition:
See In re Stokes, 995 F.2d 76 (5th Cir.
___ _____________
1993); In re Britton, 950 F.2d 602 (9th
______________
Cir. 1991); In re Apte, 180 B.R. 223 (BAP
__________
9th Cir. 1995); In re Dorsey, 162 B.R.
_____________
150 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993); In re
______
Berman, 154 B.R. 991 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
______
1993); In re Horton, 152 B.R. 912 (Bankr.
____________
S.D. Tex. 1993); In re Iommazzo, 149 B.R.
______________
767 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1993); In re Sims, 148
__________
B.R. 553 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1992); In re
_____
Day, 137 B.R. 335 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1992);
___
In re Powell, 95 B.R. 236 (Bankr. S.D.
_____________
Fla.), aff'd, 108 B.R. 343 (S.D. Fla.
_____
1989), aff'd sub nom., Powell v. Bear,
_______________ ________________
Stearns & Co., 914 F.2d 268 (11th Cir.
______________
1990).
Appellant's Br. at 11.
-11-
11
We realize that this is not a precedential holding, but it
surely does not undercut the bankruptcy court's choice of
523(a)(6) as the relevant section under which to assess
Printy's conduct.
The bankruptcy court found that Printy "was using,
indeed converting Dean Witter's assets, not assets of the
Trust, to finance his trades and personal and family
expenditures." We agree. Viewing Printy's actions as the
tort of conversion, there are cases holding that conversion
falls within the ambit of 523(a)(6). See In re Stanley, 66
___ _____________
F.3d 664, 668 (4th Cir. 1995); In re Lindberg, 49 B.R. 228
______________
(Bankr. D. Mass. 1985); In re Cardillo, 39 B.R. 548 (Bankr.
______________
D. Mass. 1984).
In In re Dorsey, 162 B.R. 150 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
_____________
1993), the bankruptcy court framed the issue as we see it:
[T]here is nothing in the text of section
523(a)(6) which precludes its proper
invocation by an aggrieved party whose
claim for willful and malicious injury
sounds in fraud. The critical focus for
relief under section 523(a)(6) for an
aggrieved creditor is the conduct
committed by the debtor, if found willful
and malicious under the facts, whether or
not such conduct might also fit within
one or more of the other exceptions to
discharge under section 523(a).
162 B.R. at 155-56.
Printy cites to In re Price, 123 B.R. 42 (Bankr.
___________
N.D. Ill. 1991), as precedent for its mutually exclusive
argument. Price, however, is the only case so holding and we
_____
-12-
12
decline to follow it. We hold that sections 523(a)(2)(A) and
(a)(6) are not mutually exclusive. It follows that the
bankruptcy court did not err in using 523(a)(6) as the
section applicable to Printy's conduct.
The next issue is whether there were sufficient
uncontroverted facts to establish that Printy's conduct
violated 523(a)(6). We start our analysis with an attempt
to determine the meaning of the words "willful and
malicious." The House Judiciary Committee's Report that
accompanied the passage of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code defined
"willful" as "deliberate or intentional" and stated that
"recklessness" was no longer the standard for "willfulness."
H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 365 (1977), reprinted in 1978
_____________
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5963, 6320-21. This, however, is only the
beginning of our task.
As the bankruptcy court pointed out, there is
disagreement among the circuits as to whether the statute
requires an intentional act that results in an injury or one
done with the intention of causing an injury, with variations
on this theme. In Piccicuto v. Dwyer, 39 F.3d 37, 41 n.3
___________________
(1st Cir. 1994), we noted "this difficult and controversial
issue." We declined to enter the fray, however, because the
parties had agreed on a definition which we used to decide
the case: "for an act to be willful and malicious under
523(a)(6), it must be 'deliberate,' 'wrongful,' and 'done
-13-
13
without regard to its consequences'. . . ." Id. at 41.
___
That option is not available in this case.
We start with a survey of the cases. The rule in
the Eleventh Circuit is that "willful" means an intentional
or deliberate act, not done merely in reckless disregard of
the rights of another. In re Walker, 48 F.3d 1161, 1163
_____________
(11th Cir. 1995). "Malicious" was defined as "wrongful and
without just cause or excessive even in the absence of
personal hatred, spite or ill-will." Id. at 1164 (internal
___
quotation marks and citation omitted). Malice could be
implied or constructive; the specific intent to harm is not
necessary. Id.
___
The Third Circuit in In re Conte, 33 F.3d 303, 305
___________
(3d Cir. 1994), held: "An injury is willful and malicious
under the Code only if the actor purposefully inflicted the
injury or acted with substantial certainty that injury would
result."
The rule of the Tenth Circuit is that "'willful and
malicious injury' occurs when the debtor, without
justification or excuse, and with full knowledge of the
specific consequences of his conduct, acts notwithstanding,
knowing full well that his conduct will cause particularized
injury." In re Pasek, 983 F.2d 1524, 1527 (10th Cir. 1993).
___________
-14-
14
The Sixth Circuit rule has been set forth in Vulcan
______
Coals v. Howard, 946 F.2d 1226, 1228-29 (6th Cir. 1991):
_______________
This court, when interpreting the terms
"willful" and "malicious" in 523(a)(6),
has held that a wrongful act done
intentionally, which necessarily produces
harm and is without just cause or excuse,
may constitute a willful and malicious
injury. We rejected the stricter
standard that "willful" and "malicious"
requires an act with intent to cause
injury.
(Citation omitted).
In re Littleton, 942 F.2d 551, 554 (9th Cir. 1991),
_______________
states the Ninth Circuit standard: "Our court has adopted
the concept that 'the conversion of another's property
without his knowledge or consent, done intentionally and
without justification and excuse, to the other's injury,'
constitutes a willful and malicious injury within the meaning
of the 523(a)(6)." (Citations omitted).
The Fifth Circuit, in Chrysler Credit Corp. v.
__________________________
Perry Chrysler Plymouth, 783 F.2d 480, 486 (5th Cir. 1986),
________________________
defined the words tersely: "'Willful' means intentional and
'malicious' means without just cause or excuse." (Footnote
omitted).
In St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vaughn, 779
___________________________________________
F.2d 1003 (4th Cir. 1985), the Fourth Circuit enunciated its
rule as follows. "[S]pecific or 'special' malice is not
required on the part of the debtor: 'if the act of
conversion is done deliberately and intentionally in knowing
-15-
15
disregard of the rights of another, it falls within the
statutory exclusion [from discharge in bankruptcy].'" Id. at
___
1008 (citation omitted).
We have chosen not to go back further than 1985 in
our review of circuit court cases. Our final case is,
therefore, In re Long, 774 F.2d 875, 881 (8th Cir. 1985), in
__________
which the Eighth Circuit stated: "When transfers in breach
of security agreements are in issue, we believe
nondischargeability turns on whether the conduct is (1)
headstrong and knowing ('willful') and, (2) targeted at the
creditor ('malicious'), at least in the sense that the
conduct is certain or almost certain to cause financial
harm."
The majority rule followed by the bankruptcy courts
for the District of Massachusetts can be stated as follows:
"[M]alicious" means an act done in
conscious disregard of one's duties. No
special malice toward the creditor need
be shown.
. . .
[T]he term "willful and malicious" in
523(a)(6) means an act intentionally
committed, without just cause or excuse,
in conscious disregard of one's duty and
that necessarily produces an injury.
See In re Lubanski, 186 B.R. 160, 165 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1995).
___ ______________
We adopt the rule of the Massachusetts bankruptcy
courts and the further refinement of it in Collier's
treatise on bankruptcy:
-16-
16
To fall within the exception of
section 523(a)(6), the injury to an
entity or property must have been willful
and malicious. An injury to an entity or
property may be a malicious injury within
this provision if it was wrongful and
without just cause or excuse, even in the
absence of personal hatred, spite or ill-
will.
The word "willfull" [sic] means
"deliberate or intentional," referring to
a deliberate and intentional act that
necessarily leads to injury. Therefore,
a wrongful act done intentionally, which
necessarily produces harm or which has a
substantial certainty of causing harm and
is without just cause or excuse, may be a
willful and malicious injury. While
something more than a mere voluntary act
is necessary to satisfy the scienter
requirement of section 523(a)(6),
specific intent to injure is not
necessary.
The malice element of section
523(a)(6) requires an intent to cause the
harm, and the fact that the injury was
caused through negligence or recklessness
does not satisfy that standard of proof.
An injury inflicted willfully and with
malice under section 523(a)(6) is one
inflicted intentionally and deliberately,
and either with the intent to cause the
harm complained of, or in circumstances
in which the harm was certain or almost
certain to result from the debtor's act.
4 Collier on Bankruptcy 523.12 (15th ed. 1996) (footnotes
omitted).
We agree with the bankruptcy court that, whatever
standard is applied here, summary judgment was warranted on
the uncontroverted facts. There can be no question that
Printy willfully and maliciously injured Dean Witter by not
-17-
17
informing it that a mistake had been made by crediting to the
Trust account the Coastal HealthCare stock that Printy knew
he did not own. Printy took advantage of Dean Witter's
computer error by borrowing against and withdrawing funds
from the false margin account that derived its value from
shares of stock that Printy knew he did not own. Such
conduct by Printy translates easily into an intent to
willfully and maliciously cause harm.
Printy attempts to blunt or obscure what he did by
arguing that Dean Witter did not prove that "its own conduct
was not an intervening cause in the creation of the debt."
Appellant's Br. at 21. Printy mischaracterizes what
happened. There is no question that Dean Witter's error gave
Printy the opportunity to use Dean Witter's assets for his
own gain. Printy saw the mistaken transfer of Coastal
HealthCare shares as a way to make some money quickly. To
put it bluntly, Printy saw a chance to make a killing at Dean
Witter's expense and he took it. There was no intervening
cause. The sole proximate cause was Printy's greed.
The final issue we discuss is whether the
bankruptcy court erred in ruling that Printy's counterclaims
were barred by res judicata because they were decided against
___ ________
Printy in the arbitration proceedings.
Count I of the counterclaim asserts breach of
contract by Dean Witter. The essence of the claim is that
-18-
18
Dean Witter agreed that it would accurately administer the
Trust account and failed to do so. It is specifically
alleged that Dean Witter refused to correct the statements in
the Trust account when "its errors were called to its
attention." And it is alleged that Dean Witter's broker,
Krmpotich, "induced and recommended that the Family Trust
engage in transactions based on the statements as provided by
Dean Witter." There are four other allegations in this count
that do not warrant further discussion.3
The specific allegation in the counterclaim that
Dean Witter refused to correct the statements in the Trust
account "when its errors were called to its attention" has no
support in the record. In fact, the record is directly to
the contrary. At his deposition Printy admitted that at no
time did he tell Krmpotich or his assistant that he did not
own any stock in Coastal HealthCare, and that the stock the
Trust held was Health Concepts, whose value was de minimis
__ _______
compared to the three to four million dollar value of Coastal
HealthCare. We find that there is no basis in the record for
Count I of the counterclaim.
____________________
3. "(9) Failure by Dean Witter to supervise its Midwest
Operations Center; (10) failure to supervise broker
Krmpotich; (11) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; and (12) that as a result, Printy was
damaged."
-19-
19
Count II of the counterclaim sounds in negligence.
It alleges that because of Dean Witter's negligence Printy
incurred damages. We have already disposed of the negligence
claim of Printy. It has no merit either legally or
factually.
Count III alleges a breach by Dean Witter of its
duty of good faith and fair dealing. This claim is based on
the following assertions:
16. As part of the arbitration with
Printy, Dean Witter sought punitive
damages.
17. Dean Witter has taken the position
throughout the country in other
arbitrations pursuant to its customer
agreements that punitive damages are not
available under New York law or any other
law.
18. Dean Witter has stated publicly its
view that punitive damages are not
available in arbitrations pursuant to its
customer agreements.
19. Having taken this position as a
matter of its consistent practice, Dean
Witter is acting in bad faith to seek
punitive damages against Printy. Its
attempt to recover such damages is
fundamentally unfair and discriminatory.
20. As a result of Dean Witter's
actions, Printy has been damaged.
Printy has cited no cases supporting this novel
claim. We have not looked for any. We have found nothing in
the record that would factually support the statements made
-20-
20
in paragraphs 17 and 18. We find that this claim, like the
others asserted in the counterclaim, has no merit.
We also agree with the bankruptcy court that the
doctrine of res judicata bars consideration of the
___ ________
counterclaim because the issues asserted in the counterclaim
were also raised as affirmative allegations in the
arbitration proceedings. In Pujol v. Shearson/American Exp.,
_______________________________
829 F.2d 1201, 1208 (1st Cir. 1987), we held that where a
party had the "full power" to press its claim in the
arbitration proceeding, "[t]he arbitration decision,
therefore, stands as a res judicata bar to these claims."
___ ________
See also Aunyx Corp. v. Canon U.S.A., 978 F.2d 3, 6-7 (1st
___ ____ ____________________________
Cir. 1992).
The summary judgment issued by the bankruptcy court
and affirmed by the district court is Affirmed.
Affirmed
________
-21-
21