Laserfiche WebLink
should exercise those rights under the Plan to enforce its state law remedies. . . <br /> The Court notes that the loth Circuit recognizes a confirmed plan is like a <br /> contract. Paul v. Monts, 906 F.2d 1468, 1476 (10"' Cir. 1990). The Bankruptcy <br /> Code's enforcement and modification provisions pertaining to Chapter 11 plans do <br /> not preempt a claim outside of the bankruptcy court for breach of contract premised <br /> on the plan of reorganization. Id.; See generally, In re BankEast Corp., 142 B.R. 12 <br /> (Bankr. D. N.H. 1992), In re Penrod 169 B.R. 910, 916 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1994), <br /> cr.Td, 50 F.3d 459 (7"' Cir. 1995). <br /> Typically, the state arena is the appropriate forum to resolve claims based upon <br /> an alleged breach of the provisions in a plan confirmed several years earlier. <br /> February 19, 1997, Order at p. 5. <br /> Thus, as this issue has already been decided adversely to DMG, MCR can in fact properly <br /> bring its claims to enforce the Liquidation Plan in this forum. <br /> A centerpiece in DMG's argument that MCR's claims should be dismissed for failure to <br /> state a claim is Paul v. Monts, 906 F.2d 1468 (10"' Cir. 1990). Far from assisting DMG in its <br /> argument, that case actually supports MCR's claims. In Paul, the Tenth Circuit specifically held <br /> that the bankruptcy trustee could bring a breach of contract action against parties the trustee alleged <br /> were bound by the confirmed bankruptcy plan. 906 F.2d at 1476. Similarly, MCR's and the <br /> Trustee's claims can be brought against DMG in this Court. Further, the discussion cited by DMG <br /> at pages 1472-73 of Paul (DMG's Motion to Dismiss, p.6), regarding too many outstanding terms <br /> and conditions to make an enforceable contract, is actually a discussion of the findings of the <br /> district court which the Tenth Circuit overturned. After reviewing the relevant facts, the Tenth <br /> Circuit concluded, "We hold that.this evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact...which <br /> should not have been disposed of on a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 1473. <br /> Other courts have also held that bankruptcy plans act as and should be interpreted as <br /> contracts, In re UNR Industries, Inc., 173 B.R. 149, 156-57 (N.D. 111. 1994). In the Matter of <br /> Penrod, 169 B.R. 910, 916-17 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1994), and In re L & V Realty Cap., 76 B.R. 35, <br /> 37 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1987). Although both Pend, supra, and the other case cited by DMG, In re <br /> 6 <br />