case on a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the nomenclature applied using the minority Wagoner standing rule followed in the Second Circuit. While the Trustee may bring this claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Citibank, he does not have constitutional standing to recover damages for injuries that are particular to creditors. Specifically, the Trustee does not have constitutional standing to recover from Citibank money lost by the 1031 Debtors’ exchange participants who were waiting to complete their 1031 exchange transactions when Okun looted funds from the Citibank bank accounts. Courts in this Circuit have consistently rejected attempts by trustees to assert claims for injuries that are particularized to creditors. See, e.g., Hirsch, 72 F.3d at 1093 (<HOLDING>); Picard v. Taylor (In re Park S. Secs., LLC),
holding that a bankruptcy appellate panel abuses its discretion by preventing a bankruptcy trustee from reopening a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding when reopening the case would potentially benefit creditors holding that a bankruptcy trustee is barred from pursuing claims for injuries particularized to certain creditors holding that debtors failure to disclose claims against creditors in bankruptcy proceeding judicial estopped him from later prosecuting claims holding that a trustees claim was barred by res judicata and stating that the trustee could have asked the bankruptcy court to reserve his fraud claims for later adjudication which would have avoided his claims being barred holding that there is a difference between a debtor attempting to pursue an action for his own benefit and a trustee pursuing an action for the benefit of the creditors