  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
v. In re Velo Holdings, Inc., 500 B.R. 693 and 501 B.R. 188 (Bankr. S.D. NY 2013)
Issue: Reorganized Chapter 11 debtors moved to enforce injunctive provisions of their confirmed plan and plan confirmation order against State Attorney General.
Holding: The Bankruptcy Court, Martin Glenn, J., held that state, merely by issuing civil investigative demand for information relating to reorganized debtors' postconfirmation business practices, for purpose of determining whether to bring claim against debtors based solely on their postconfirmation conduct, did not institute "action" or "employ process" against reorganization debtor that violated the discharge injunction.
vi. Tr anscontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc. v. New Prime, Inc. (In re Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines, Inc.), 494 B.R. 816 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2013)
Issue: Whether after plan confirmation, a bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over non-core claims based on prepetition matters.
Holding: The bankruptcy court held that non-core claims based on prepetition matters no longer fell within the bankruptcy court's jurisdictional umbrella after plan confirmation. The post- confirmation liquidating agent in a Chapter 11 brought several state law claims and Bankruptcy Code fraudulent transfer claims against various defendants based on prepetition actions. The defendants raised jurisdictional arguments to the claims. The court found that the fraudulent conveyance claims under the Bankruptcy Code were core proceedings, and thus, it had jurisdiction over such claims. However, the court found that "[c]laims against others that existed prepetition are generally considered to be non-core related matters" and "the scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction over non-core matters narrows after confirmation so that only those matters having a close nexus to the bankruptcy plan or proceeding will qualify for bankruptcy jurisdiction." The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the claims for fraud, civil conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty because the plan had been confirmed and such claims were non-core claims based on prepetition matters.
vii. Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc., 492 B.R. 707 (D.N.J. 2013)
Issue: Whether the disbursing agent appointed under the debtor's liquidating plan to represent the interests of the debtor had constitutional standing to file an adversary complaint against a lender, the debtor's affiliates, and the debtor's insiders asserting various claims for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of assets.
Holding: The bankruptcy court found that the disbursing agent did have constitutional standing to bring the actions. The court applied the following three Lujan requirements: "(1) it suffered
©2014 William L. Norton III
