litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society ... The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud. Id. at 246, 64 S.Ct. at 1001. The Law Firm Defendants’ motions to dismiss rest entirely on the argument that the Trustee cannot bring an independent action for damages for fraud on the court. The Court acknowledges that there is limited authority for awarding damages in an action brought for fraud on the court. See Chmil, Jr. v. Rulisa Operating Company (In the Matter of Tudor Associates, Ltd. II), 1990 WL 546146, *1 (E.D.N.C.) (<HOLDING>). However, the Court also notes that most
holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages holding that it was within the bankruptcy courts equitable powers to award damages in an action for fraud on the court holding that pursuant to federal statute and the courts inherent equitable powers a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue a separate money judgment after determining the amount and dischargeability of a claim holding claimant waived right to jury trial on claims brought against it on behalf of bankruptcy estate when it submitted its proof of claim against the estate and subjected itself to the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court