Involuntary bankruptcies are rare - as they should be.
They are a last resort after all state remedies have been
exhausted, and are not a tool to be used in order to solve
two party disputes.
The questions presented are as follows:
A. Is the Second Circuit's decision in conflict
with In re: Matthew N. Murray (Wilk
Auslender LLP v Murray) 900 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.
2018), Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In
re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019
WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019) and this
Court's holdings in Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S.
415, 421(2014)?
B. Did the Bankruptcy Court violate the
Colorado River and other Abstention
Doctrines?
C. Did the Bankruptcy Court lack subject matter
jurisdiction to grant the involuntary petition?
D. Did the Second Circuit condone a profound
abuse of the involuntary bankruptcy process?

Is the Second Circuit's decision in conflict with In re: Matthew N. Murray (Wilk Auslender LLP v Murray), Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), and Law v. Siegel?