as the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002. 2 . To be sure, the judgment against Mathews was entered prior to, and thus is not consistent with, the OSC's decision in Blair. But, as noted, Mathews did not appeal from the judgment, and there is no indication in the record on appeal that he has sought, let alone been granted, relief from the judgment based upon Blair. 3 . The judgment entered against the Wilcoxes should also, in my view, be considered nondischargeable under the majority’s narrow interpretation of § 523(a)(19), given the state district court's finding regarding the Wilcoxes' knowing involvement in Schubert's criminal scheme. The same would also be true under the Sherman majority's similarly narrow interpretation of § 523(a)(19). See 658 F.3d at 1019
holding that   523a19 prevents the discharge of debts for securitiesrelated wrongdoings  where the debtor is responsible for that wrongdoing holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error holding that the state would presumably be responsible for any debts incurred because the park authority submits its budget to the georgia legislature holding that  9613f1 is the exclusive vehicle for responsible parties to obtain contribution from other responsible parties holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss