Did the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in approving the settlement of Trustee's and petitioner ex-wife's dispute

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; Did the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in affirming the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel approving the settlement of Trustee’s, Karl T. Anderson, and petitioner ex-wife, Choong Dae Kang; an abuse of discretion. Did the Court of Appeal and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel abuse its discretion in holding that public policy need not be considered in determining whether to approve the settlement, departing from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding, and sanctioned such a departure by a lower court. Did the Court of Appeal and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel abuse its discretion in finding that the settlement did not violate public policy such as by absolving appellee Kang of misconduct in the Family Court and excusing her from making mandatory statutory financial disclosures. Did the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit entered a decision in conflict with the decision of United States Court of Appeal State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Two. Did the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California, Riverside Division, enter a decision in conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court. ’ Did the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California, Riverside Division abuse its discretion as Article I bankruptcy judges, violate the Constitution of Article III, in that the court lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in the claims allowance process. Was the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California, Riverside Division evaluation of the A & C Properties factors decision an abuse of discretion in turning a blind eye to the records of the court in allowing the parties to take advantage of its wrongdoing.