Posted by / 03-Jan-2020 12:01


2005), in which the court refused to enforce a forum selection clause because, most significantly, the fraudulent transfer claims did not arise from the relevant contract, but rather arose by operation of statute.On July 16, 2009, the Debtors filed a petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in Delaware.The Court concludes that where, as here, the Plan only broadly provided for retention of jurisdiction over causes of action, it provides no evidence of a sufficiently close nexus with the bankruptcy proceeding to support post-confirmation jurisdiction.The Plaintiff argues that the nexus between the claims and the bankruptcy case is sufficiently close because proceeds from the claims will increase recoveries for the creditors.For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it has no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted post-confirmation by the Plaintiff because they are not sufficiently "related to" the bankruptcy case.

1983); In re Cartridge Television, Inc., 535 F.2d 1388, 1390 (2d Cir.1976).

While it may have put Rialto on notice, the rest of the creditors who voted on the Plan had no specific knowledge of the claims.

[was] a liquidating trustee representing a group of creditors appointed pursuant to the confirmed plan of reorganization"); Insilco, 330 B.

As noted, this adversary proceeding was filed post-confirmation and is unrelated to any specific provision of the Plan.

Therefore, the Court concludes that this factor is insufficient to establish post-confirmation jurisdiction.


Plan provisions that purport to preserve the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction are not alone sufficient to establish post-confirmation jurisdiction; instead the court must determine whether "a matter affects the interpretation, implementation, consummation, execution, or administration of a confirmed plan...." Resorts, 372 F.3d at 168-69.