and the right to participate in the distribution of assets (if the trustee intends to liquidate assets). For these reasons, to satisfy constitutional due process, the omitted creditor may challenge the dischargeability of his debt after the expiration of the deadline for other creditors, and the omitted creditor is not restricted to the bankruptcy court to challenge the discharge-ability but may do so in any appropriate forum. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3); Colonial Sur. Co. v. Weizman, 564 F.3d 526, 530-31 (1st Cir. 2009) (explaining why failure to provide notice before taking away right to challenge dischargeability or participate in bankruptcy case deprived unlisted creditor of due process); Apex Oil Co., Inc. v. Sparks (In re Apex Oil Co., Inc.), 406 F.3d 538, 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). 13 . If the omission had been intentional,
holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act holding that the state court may adjudicate the applicability of a bankruptcy injunction to state court litigation holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction postconfirmation to adjudicate adversary proceeding concerning asset purchases at bankruptcy sale notwithstanding inclusion of language in the plan purporting to retain such jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court