in an express trust for another. Begier, 496 U.S. at 59, 110 S.Ct. 2258. Therefore, any action brought by the trustee against Defendants would not bring property into the estate for the benefit of the creditors. Instead, such a suit would recover misappropriated trust property for Cannon’s clients, the beneficiaries of the express trust who lost their money upon the collapse of his schemes. Accordingly, because the trustee asserts causes of action in the non-core proceeding alleging harm to the beneficiaries of the express trust, he lacks standing to maintain this suit against Defendants. See In re Van Dresser Carp., 128 F.3d at 947. We find support for our conclusion in several cases from the Second and Eleventh Circuits. See Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944
holding that the trustee had standing to pursue an action for churning against the debtors broker relating to transactions in a discretionary account but did not have standing to bring a suit for fraud since that cause of action accrued to creditors under new york law holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims holding that a trustee had no standing to pursue claims of fraud against the debtors accountant because under connecticut law those claims belonged to investors holding that because  544b1 provides only the power of avoidance it does not confer authority on the trustee to pursue state law damage claims but that the trustee could pursue such claims under  544a1 or 2 if the claims could have been asserted by the debtor corporation holding that debtors have no right to jury trial on malpractice claims against their attorneys