1997-02-19_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017

Home Browse Search

Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984) (emphasis omitted) . . . . Gardner, at 1518. Thus, the bankruptcy courts ' jurisdiction over a given issue or claim is based entirely on the relationship between the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and the asserted claim. The more direct the relationship, the stronger the argument in favor of jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Board's request to reopen the case to enforce and interpret the confirmed Plan is merely a cloak to make I request appear like a core proceeding. The County does not need the shelter of this Court to enforce its rights under the Plan as they are enforceable in the state court. Its claims are unimpaired, they exist post-confirmation with the state law rights and remedies held before the bankruptcy petition was filed. All of the creditors had notice and are bound by the Plan ' s language which permits the County to exercise those rights and remedies in the state courts. -o the extent the Ccunry _s not satisfied that the Plan ' s repayment `arms have been met, it should exercise i_s rights under the Plan zo enforce its state law remedies. Thus, �:he Court concludes that at best its jurisdiction over the Board' s request is related to the administration of property through the Creditor ' s Trust. The Court notes that she 10th Circuit recognizes a confirmed plan is like a contract. Paul v. Monts, 906 F. 2d 1468 , 1476 ( 10th Cir. 1990) . The Bankruptcy Code ' s enforcement and modification provisions pertaining to Chapter 11 plans do not preempt a claim outside of the bankruptcy court for breach of contract premised on the plan of reorganization. id_; see generally, in re BankEast Corp. , 142 B.R. 1.2 (Bankr. D. N.H. 1992) ; In re Penrod, 169 B.R. 910, 916 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1994) , aff'd, 50 F. 3d 459 (7" Cir. 1995) . Typically, the state arena is the appropriate forum to resolve claims based upon an alleged breach of the provisions in a plan confirmed several years earlier. Logically, if the contract that is the confirmed plan leaves the creditor unimpaired, it is intended that the creditor will exercise its (along with any additional claims based upon the new contract) outside of the bankruptcy court. Although jurisdiction nas been found over the matter , cause has not been shown to reopen the case. The County has abundant protection and relief ' under state law and should be able to adjudicate its rights both fully and promptly in the state courts . The County ' s claims do not involve matters uniquely suited or those which in the interest of =•_:stice would rea_uire further review by the bankruptcy court.