1. Plaintiffs’ claims against the Carmel Defendants are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Bankruptcy Court’s November 23,1999 intended action order concluded that even if the Carmel Defendants did take advantage of inside information, their purchase of the bondholders’ claims did not injure Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s order and the proposed distribution to the bondholders went. forward. Plaintiffs are barred from relitigating the issue. Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 486, 157 L.Ed.2d 377 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 2. Plaintiffs’ claims against the trustee are
holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel holding that third exception to antiinjunction act permits federal courts to enjoin state court relitigation of matters finally adjudicated in federal court including matters that were not raised but could have been raised in federal proceeding holding that collateral estoppel bars relitigation of previously adjudicated matters holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant