1, 6 (9th Cir. BAP 2014). 17 . Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.04. 18 . Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 428-303(a) (tort liabilities of an LLC are "solely” the liabilities of the company and members are not liable "solely by reason of being or acting as a member or a manager.”); 425-117(c) (same as to LLPs). 15 . Id. 19 . 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). 20 . In re Jercich, 238 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir.2001). 21 . Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61, 118 S.Ct. 974, 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998). 22 . Jercich, 238 F.3d at 1209 (quoting In re Bammer, 131 F.3d 788, 791 (9th. Cir.1997) (en banc)). 23 . Sung v. Hamilton, 710 F.Supp.2d 1036, 1043-44 (D.Haw.2010) (quoting Tsuru v. Bayer, 25 Haw. 693, 1920 WL 830, *2 (Haw. Terr. 1920)). 24 . Cal-Micro, Inc. v. Cantrell (In re Cantrell), 329 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Ormsby v. First Am. Title Co. (In re Ormsby),
holding that federal law defines fiduciary capacity and fraud or defalcation holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty holding that the fraud or defalcation prong of  523a4 requires the showing of an express trust holding a duty of care without more insufficient to satisfy the fiduciary relationship element of  523a4 the federal courts adopting this narrow interpretation of fiduciary for purposes of the bankruptcy code gen erally hold that an express or technical trust is necessary to trigger the defalcation provision of  523a4 holding that jury verdict in prior state court fraud action including finding that debtor willfully breached fiduciary duty had preclusive effect on courts determination of nondischargeability based on defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity under  523a4