plenary actions which may be brought in the court of bankruptcy in a reorganization case by virtue of the exclusion of § 23 from Chapter X of the Act, Williams v. Austrian, 331 U.S. 642 (1947), do not lie within the jurisdiction of the court in a bankruptcy case, i.e., unless there is consent. Accordingly, such cases as In re Standard Gas & Electric Co., 119 F.2d 658, 663-65 (3d Cir. 1941), sustaining objections to extraterritorial service of process attempted by the trustee in suing on causes of action belonging to the debtor's estate would not be affected by this rule. Paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) authorizes nationwide service of process other than a subpoena on ary party to an adversary proceeding. The rule thus overules such cases as Gathany v. Bishop, 177 F. 2d 567, 569 (4th Cir. (1949), insofar as it held or implied that the court of bankruptcy sitting in North Carolina could not enjoin an action in Illinois. Insofar as that case rested on the implications of Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234 (1934). it has been overruled by §§ 14f and 17c (4) of the Act. An adversary proceeding may be transferred under Rule 782 to any other district in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and, as pointed out in the Note accompanying that rule, a court should be particularly hospitable to a motion for transfer when the defendant resides or has his principal place of business at a substantial distance from the district where the case is pending. A judgment for the recovery of money or property rendered in the court of bankruptcy may be registered in any other district upon compliance with the procedure authorized by Rule 921 (b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) authorizes service on certain parties in foreign countries. The premise of including the bankrupt and the other persons listed in clause (A) of the paragraph is that the court must have the power to proceed against the bankrupt and the persons associated with him in the manner indicated for the purposes of administering the estate notwithstanding their absence from the country Cf. §§ 7a (10) and 10 of the Act: In re Wood & Henderson, 210 U.S. 246, 253-54, 257-58 (1908) (holding that re-examination of bankrupt's attorney's fees under § 60d of the Act can be had only by the court administering the estate and that notice by mail to attorneys outside the district sufficed); Sege man v. United States, 425 F. 2d 984 (9th Cir. 1970) (s taining conviction of bankrupts for concealment of as notwithstanding lack of personal service of process them and their presence in Canada during the t:" offenses were committed); Benitev v. Anciana, 127 121, 125-126 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 317 ' (1943) (involving service on nonresident heir who died after filing of petition): Carter v. Wh Fed. 743, 746 (8th_| Cir. 1921) (involving partne judicated in the District of Montana and an ner residing in Iowa); 1 Collier 7 1845 would overrule such cases as UL/ 125-126 (18 102 (1910), insofar as against a nonresiden to turn over ings, and Noi reversing corpor attor 1 Subdivision (g) follows Rule 4(g) of the Feder. of Civil Procedure in respect to requiring proof of but particularizes the need, when service is · mail, for a signed receipt or other evidence of refusal of the mail by the addressee. Subdivision (h) gives the court the same allow amendment of process of proof of granted by Rule 4 (h) of the Federal Rules dure but also recognizes that insubs prejudicial errors occurring in papers. rule and in the proof of service may also Rule 905. B) of a perso eding ma sentence of this sion for "bulge s les of Civil Proced Rules. That provi as parties pursu where within the U - from the place whe sary in Bankruptcy de service of all pro Tary proceedings. rted case tcy, it is ading this Meaded in a ject to the Baudoutine, 3v. Eloy Gin ied, 346 U.S. .th Cir. 1928). The jurisdiction See Rule 928; 90 (1941); Dery 1. The court of n to determine to property in its disputants, conAre necessary to be ation of the estate. 160, 163-64 (1938); terview State Bank, Central States Corp. . 1954). adaptation of Rule 12 Procedure, governs the ird-party defendants so apply to the service of s in the third-party prorsary proceeding between nkruptcy Rule 713 follows xcept that no one sued by ed to assert a counterclaim he reference to Rule 713 in rule protects a third-party ility that he will be deemed claim against the trustee or 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings. e 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures les in adversary proceedings except that (1) a ading to which no responsive pleading is perted may be amended as a matter of course at any the within 15 days after it is served but before the te set for trial and that (2) a party shall plead 3. response to an amended pleading within the time emaining for response to the original pleading or within 5 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES The reduction provided by this rule of the time limits prescribed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure conforms generally to bankruptcy practice and furthers established policy to expedite bankruptcy proceedings. See Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 328-29 (1966); General Order 37, explicitly authorizing the bankruptcy court to shorten the time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to expedite hearings. Since Rule 704 (a) requires a date to be set for trial before service of the summons and complaint, the condition prescribed by Federal Civil Rule 15(a) on amendment of a pleading to which no response is permitted-viz., that the action not have been placed upon the trial calendaris inappropriate in this rule. Obviously, however, an amendment as of course must be served before the trial is held. Rule 716. Pre-Trial Procedure; Formulating Issues. Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES The economies of time and money and greater efficiency in the judicial process attainable by the use of pre-trial procedures should be available to the court in adversary proceedings in bankruptcy cases. See Yankwich, The Impact of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Bankruptcy, 42 Cal.L.Rev. 738, 756 (1954). The references to a jury and to a master in Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not likely to be relevant when a referee acts under this rule. Rule 717. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity. Except as provided in Rules 212(f) and 512(d), Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES The exceptions recognize the propriety of bringing a proceeding on a bond of a trustee, receiver, or designated depository in the name of the United States as heretofore authorized by § 50h of the Act. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been deemed applicable in bankruptcy proceedings. Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. State Street Trust Co., 202 F.2d 555, 560 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 835 (1953). It has been assumed that 28 U.S.C. § 754, to which Civil Rule 17(b) (2) refers, does not apply to receivers appointed in bankruptcy cases. Oglebay, Some Developments in Bankruptcy Law, 23 Ref.J. 70, 71-72 (1949). Whereas this section of the Judicial Code confers capacity on a receiver "to sue in any district without ancillary appointment," § 69c of the Act and General Order 51 have contemplated the appointment of an ancillary receiver when it is necessary for a receiver to commence an action or proceeding in a district other than that wherein the bankruptcy case is pending. In view of the abolition of ancillary appointment of receivers by Rule 217, however, there is no reason why the capacity of a receiver in bankruptcy to sue should not be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 754 in accordance with Rule 17(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicability to receivers in bankruptcy of 28 U.S.C. § 959 (a), to which Civil Rule 17(b) (2) refers and which governs capacity of a receiver UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIKARIES Subdivision (a) of the rule moreover explicitly recognizes, as does Civil Rule 12(a), that the time to be allowed a defendant for service of his answer should be subject to modification by the court when he has been served by publication or in a foreign country. Rule 704 goes beyond Civil Rule 4 in authorizing nationwide service by mail, but it is not contemplated that the 25-day period usually allowed the defendant for service of his answer will warrant the court's intervention to prescribe a longer time. For the purposes of the second sentence of subdivision (a) service by mail is made upon a party in a foreign country when the papers addressed to him there are mailed. See Rule 906(e). The periods allowed for service of an answer to a crossclaim, of a reply to a counterclaim, and of a responsive pleading by the United States run, as in Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from the time of service of the pleading to which the response is being made. The times allowed have been reduced from those prescribed by Civil Rule 12(a), however, in the interest of expediting the trial of adversary proceedings. For the same reason the times allowed for serving responsive pleadings after motions have been served, and for serving a motion to strike when no responsive pleading is permitted, are shorter in this rule than are allowed by Civil Rule 12. Subdivision (b). Rule 12(h) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits certain defenses to be made by amendment of a responsive pleading if the amendment is one permitted as a matter of course by Rule 15(a) and if the defense has not otherwise been waived. Subdivision (b) of this rule makes Civil Rule 12(h) (1) applicable in adversary proceedings but requires (in clause (3)) a refference to Bankruptcy Rule 715(1) to determine when an amendment of a responsive pleading is permitted as a matter of course in an adversary proceeding. Rule 12(h) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows certain defenses, including that of failure to join a party indispensable under Rule 19, to be made in a variety of ways, Subdivision (b) of this rule makes Civil Rule 12(h) (2) applicable in adversary proceedings but requires a reference to Bankruptcy Rule 719 for a determination of what parties must be joined in adversary proceedings. Rule 12(h) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires dismissal of an action whenever it appears to the court that it lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. Under § 2a (7) of the Act, however, failure to interpose objection to the jurisdiction of the court of bankruptcy by a timely motion or answer constitutes consent to jurisdiction of the court over any controversy arising in a proceeding under the Act. The distinctive problems that arise when an objection is made to the jurisdiction of the court of bankruptcy are governed by Bankruptcy Rule 915 rather than Civil Rule 12 (h) (3). Rule 713. Counterclaim and Cross-Claim. Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings, except that (1) subdivision (f) does not apply, (2) a party sued by a trustee or receiver need not state as a counterclaim any claim which he has against the bankrupt, his property, or the estate, (3) when a trustee or receiver fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice so requires, he may by leave of court set up the omitted counterclaim by amendment or by commencing a new adversary proceeding or separate action, and (4) persons other than the original parties to the adversary proceeding my be made parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim in accordance with Rules 719 and 720. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has generally been held applicable in bankruptcy cases. Harris v. Capehart-Farnsworth Corp., 225 F.2d 268, 270 (8th Cir. 1955); In re House of Gus Holder, Inc., 91 F.Supp. 841, 844 (D.N.J. 1950); 2 Collier 554 (1961), No case has held, however, that a secured creditor or other party to an adversary proceeding commenced by a trustee or receiver in the court of bankruptcy can be compelled to submit all his claims arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the trustee's or receiver's claim for determination by that court. Considerations of procedural economy and expedition and the advantages of organic administration of all the affairs of a bankrupt estate by the court of bankruptcy do not warrant compulsion of an adversary party who is not otherwise subject to the court's jurisdiction to file any counterclaim in that court. Cf. Daniel v. Guaranty Trust Co., 285 U.S. 154, 162 (1931). Excusing an adversary party from being required to state a counterclaim against the bankrupt or his property when he is sued in the court of bankruptcy is consonant with the 1963 amendment of Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This amendment relieves a defendant from the compulsion to file a counterclaim in a quasi-in-rem proceeding instituted in a federal court that does not have jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against him. The amendment withdraws the dispensation if the defendant states any counterclaim under Rule 13, but no comparable provision seems warranted in this rule. The adversary party must file his claim in the bankruptcy proceeding if he wishes to receive any distribution. If the proceeding concerns property in the custody of the bankruptcy court on which the adversary party has a lien, the trustee may compel the secured party to accept foreclosure in the bankruptcy court by obtaining an order for sale free of liens. See 4A Collier 70.99 (1967). The adversary party is bound in any event by the court's determination of all the issues presented by the pleadings and is subject to the operation of the doctrine of res judicata. Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 334 (1966); Schwartz v. Levin & Malin, Inc., 111 F. 2d 81 (2d Cir. 1940). The foregoing considerations afford no comparable justification for excepting the trustee or receiver from the operation of Rule 13 insofar as it requires him to state any compulsory counterclaim he has against a party to an adversary proceeding. See In re Belmetals Mfg., Co., 299 F. Supp. 1290, 1296-97 (N.D. Cal. 1969); In re House of Gus Holder, Inc., 91 F. Supp. 841, 844 (D.N.J. 1950); 2 Collier, supra 555. When the trustee or a receiver wishes to assert a claim for money or property under these rules against a creditor-claimant in the court of bankruptcy, he must ordinarily commence an adversary proceeding by filing a complaint. See the Notes to Rules 306 and 701. An inflexible application of the compulsory counterclaim provisions of Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against the trustee or receiver, however, may be detrimental to the bankrupt estate, the complainant who may be subject to a possible counterclaim, and the objective of facilitating a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of adversary proceedings. Thus, if a secured creditor seeks reclamation before or shortly after a trustee has qualified, or if a creditor seeks relief from the stay provided by Rule 401 or 601, the trustee may not have an opportunity to determine whether he has any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the basis for the complaint. In that circumstance, if the compulsory counterclaim provisions were to be rigidly applied, the only practical course open to him would be to seek an extension of the time for filing his responsive pleading to permit an investigation of possible bases for counterclaims. Clause (3) of the rule protects the trustee or receiver against the risk of losing a claim against an adverse party by failing to plead it as a counterclaim and thereby reduces the likelihood that adversary proceedings against a trustee or receiver will be delayed for the purpose of enabling him to investigate potential counterclaims. The relief authorized by clause (3) to be afforded the trustee or receiver who belatedly discovers a counterclaim includes permission to institute a new proceeding or action, as may be necessary when the adversary proceeding against the estate may have been terminated. Since a party sued by the trustee or receiver is not subject to any compulsion to file a counterclaim under clause (2) of the rule and since clause (3) authorizes relief that goes beyond that authorized by Rule 13(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that subdivision of the Civil Rules is not applicable in adversary proceedings. When a counterclaim or cross-claim filed under this rule requires joinder of other persons as parties in order for the court to reach a complete and just conclusion of the proceeding. Bankruptcy Rule 719 rather than Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the determination of whether such persons shall be joined. As the Note to Rule 719 points out, the jurisdictional limitations that restrict the joinder of persons in adversary proceedings differ from those that apply in plenary actions governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. With respect to permissive joinder of parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim. Rule 720 makes all the provisions of Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in adversary proceedings. The provision for "bulge service" in Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not included in the Bankruptcy Rules. That provision, which permits additional parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim to be served anywhere within the United States but not beyond 100 miles from the place where the action is commenced, is unnecessary in Bankruptcy Rule 704 (f), since it authorizes nationwide service of all process other than a subpoena in adversary proceedings. Rule 714. Third-Party Practice. Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings except as the court otherwise directs. A third-party defendant served under this rule shall make his defenses as provided in Rule 712 and his counterclaims as provided in Rule 713. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES While Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not appear to have been invoked in any reported case involving an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy, it is consonant with § 2a(6) of the Act. Notwithstanding this statutory provision, a person sought to be impleaded in a bankruptcy proceeding may be entitled to object to the jurisdiction of the court of bankruptcy. In re Baudoutine, 101 Fed. 574, 575-76 (2d Cir. 1900); cf. Evarts v. Eloy Gin Corp., 204 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 876 (1953): In re Chakos, 24 F.2d 482, 485 (7th Cir. 1928). And this rule does not, of course, extend the jurisdiction of the court over a third party proceeding. See Rule 928; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 590 (1941); Dery v. Wyer, 265 F.2d 804, 808 (2d Cir. 1959). The court of bankruptcy nevertheless has jurisdiction to determine controversies between third persons as to property in its custody and with the consent of the disputants, controversies between third persons that are necessary to be resolved to permit complete administration of the estate. Harris v. Avery Brundage Co., 305 U.S. 160, 163–64 (1938); Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Riverview State Bank, 217 F.2d 455, 459-60 (10th Cir. 1954); Central States Corp. v. Luther, 215 F.2d 38, 44-45 (10th Cir. 1954). Bankruptcy Rule 712, which is an adaptation of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governs the making of any defense by the third-party defendants so that the same time limits shall apply to the service of responsive pleadings and motions in the third-party proceeding as in the original adversary proceeding between the plaintiff and defendant. Bankruptcy Rule 713 follows Civil Rule 13 in all respects except that no one sued by a trustee or receiver is compelled to assert a counterclaim in an adversary proceeding. The reference to Rule 713 in the second sentence of this rule protects a third-party defendant against the possibility that he will be deemed bound to assert a counterclaim against the trustee or receiver. The provision for "bulge service" in Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not included in the Bankruptcy Rules. That provision, which permits persons brought in as parties pursuant to Civil Rule 14 to be served anywhere within the United States but not beyond 100 miles from the place where the action is commenced, is unnecessary in Bankruptcy Rule 4(f) since it authorizes nationwide service of all process other than a subpoena in adversary proceedings. Rule 715. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures applies in adversary proceedings except that (1) a pleading to which no responsive pleading is permitted may be amended as a matter of course at any time within 15 days after it is served but before the date set for trial and that (2) a party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within 5 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be longer, unless the court otherwise orders. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES The reduction provided by this rule of the time limits prescribed by Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure conforms generally to bankruptcy practice and furthers established policy to expedite bankruptcy proceedings. See Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 328-29 (1966); General Order 37, explicitly authorizing the bankruptcy court to shorten the time limits prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to expedite hearings. Since Rule 704 (a) requires a date to be set for trial before service of the summons and complaint, the condition prescribed by Federal Civil Rule 15(a) on amendment of a pleading to which no response is permitted-viz., that the action not have been placed upon the trial calendaris inappropriate in this rule. Obviously, however, an amendment as of course must be served before the trial is held. Rule 716. Pre-Trial Procedure; Formulating Issues. Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES The economies of time and money and greater efficiency in the judicial process attainable by the use of pre-trial procedures should be available to the court in adversary proceedings in bankruptcy cases. See Yankwich, The Impact of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Bankruptcy, 42 Cal.L.Rev. 738, 756 (1954). The references to a jury and to a master in Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not likely to be relevant when a referee acts under this rule. Rule 717. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity. Except as provided in Rules 212(f) and 512(d), Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES The exceptions recognize the propriety of bringing a proceeding on a bond of a trustee, receiver, or designated depository in the name of the United States as heretofore authorized by § 50h of the Act. Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been deemed applicable in bankruptcy proceedings. Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. State Street Trust Co., 202 F.2d 555, 560 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 835 (1953). It has been assumed that 28 U.S.C. § 754, to which Civil Rule 17(b)(2) refers, does not apply to receivers appointed in bankruptcy cases. Oglebay, Some Developments in Bankruptcy Law, 23 Ref.J. 70, 71-72 (1949). Whereas this section of the Judicial Code confers capacity on a receiver "to sue in any district without ancillary appointment," § 69c of the Act and General Order 51 have contemplated the appointment of an ancillary receiver when it is necessary for a receiver to commence an action or proceeding in a district other than that wherein the bankruptcy case is pending. In view of the abolition of ancillary appointment of receivers by Rule 217, however, there is no reason why the capacity of a receiver in bankruptcy to sue should not be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 754 in accordance with Rule 17(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicability to receivers in bankruptcy of 28 U.S.C. § 959 (a), to which Civil Rule 17(b) (2) refers and which governs capacity of a receiver to be sued, seems never to have been doubted. Cf. Thompson v. Texas Mexican Ry., 328 U.S. 134, 138-41 (1946); Vass v. Conron Bros, 59 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1932); Kennison v. Philadelphia & Reading C. & I. Co., 38 F.Supp. 980, 983 (D. Minn. 1940). Rule 718. Joinder of Claims and Remedies. Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES Subject to jurisdictional limitations, the policy of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to adjust at one time all conflicts between the parties is congenial adversary proceedings in bankruptcy. 2 Collier 23.04[2] (1961); Yankwich, The Impact of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Bankruptcy, 42 Cal.L.Rev. 738, 750-52, 29 Ref.J. 75, 79 (1955). to As pointed out in the Note accompanying Rule 701, the rules in Part VII, including this Rule 718, do not govern the making of a claim by an unsecured creditor against the estate of the bankrupt. The making of such a claim is governed by the rules in Part III. Rule 719. Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Determination. (a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the proceeding if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the proceeding and is so situated that the disposition of the proceeding in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. (b) Objection to Jurisdiction by Joined Person. If a person joined under subdivision (a) hereof makes a timely objection as provided in Rule 915 to the jurisdiction of the court to determine issues affecting his interest and the objection is sustained, the court shall dismiss such person from the proceeding or, pursuant to Rule 915(b), transfer the part of the proceeding involving his interest to the civil docket of the district court. (c) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder or Proceeding with Joined Person Not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a) hereof cannot be made a party, or if such a person is dismissed or the part of the proceeding involving his interest is transferred pursuant to subdivision (b) hereof, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the proceeding should continue among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be ade quate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the proceeding is dismissed for nonjoinder. (d) Pleading Reasons for Nonjoinder. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons as described in subdivision (a) who are not joined, and the reasons why they are not joined. (e) Exception of Class Proceedings. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 723. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES This rule is an adaptation of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the purposes of adversary proceedings. The word "determination" appears in the title in lieu of "adjudication" as used in the title of Civil Rule 19 because of the special meaning given the latter word by § 1(2) of the Act. Subdivision (a). Since joinder of a party can neither deprive the court of the jurisdiction otherwise existing over the subject matter of an adversary proceeding nor render the venue of an adversary proceeding improper, subdivision (a) of the rule omits the language of Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that refers to these possibilities in ordinary civil litigation in the district courts. Subdivision (b). A person may, however, be entitled to raise an objection to the jurisdiction of the court of bankruptcy to determine his rights and obligations even though other parties to the proceeding may have no such objection because, for example, they have waived it. See In re Prima Co., 98 F.2d 952, 956-59 (7th Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 658 (1939). In such a case subdivision (b) governs the disposition of such an objection when it is timely raised. No comparable provision is found in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the situation does not arise in ordinary civil litigation in the district court. Subdivision (c) is an adaptation of subdivision (b) of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, making the procedure and considerations appropriate when joinder is not feasible likewise applicable when a jurisdictional objection by a joined party is sustained. Subdivisions (d) and (e) follow subdivisions (c) and (d) of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 720. Permissive Joinder of Parties. Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been deemed applicable in bankruptcy proceedings. Elias v. Clarke, 143 F.2d 640, 644 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 778 (1944). Rule 721. Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties. Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has been held applicable in proceedings under the Act. In re Hudik-Ross Co., Inc., 198 F.Supp. 695, 697 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). Its second sentence is an elaboration of § 2a (6) of the Act. See 1 Collier 2.39 (1968). The third sentence of Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure like Civil Rules 13(1) and 42(b), is "certainly applicable in bankruptcy. . . and, indeed, . . . perhaps more readily available there, since the practice of interlocutory appeals in bankruptcy provides for the complete splitting of the issues upon review, whereas a civil appeal requires generally a final judgment disposing of an entire matter." Elias v. Clarke, 143 F.2d 640, 644 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 323 U.S. 778 (1944). Rule 722. Interpleader. Rule 22(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies in adversary proceedings. |