Rochelle's Daily Wire

Listing a lawsuit explicitly in a disclosure statement may not mean there’s a ‘close nexus’ to provide subject matter jurisdiction for an action brought in bankruptcy court after confirmation.

The Third Circuit splits from Seventh and Tenth Circuit opinions dating from 1987 and 1990.

Some courts don’t transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1412 if the claims are only ‘related to’ the bankruptcy and don’t arise in the bankruptcy case or arise under the Bankruptcy Code.

Chicago’s Judge David Cleary called for post-confirmation arbitration of claims between the debtor and a creditor, but no arbitration for the creditor’s defenses, raising questions of bankruptcy law.

District court upholds an ‘opt-out’ chapter 11 plan with releases for nondebtors.

The Third Circuit upheld Bankruptcy Judge Goldblatt of Delaware where the answer was self-evident but there was no controlling authority.

The ‘probate exception’ to federal subject matter jurisdiction does not prevent bankruptcy courts from basing decisions on state trusts and estates law, except in limited circumstances.

In transferring venue of a related case under Rule 1014(b), the bankruptcy court can move sua sponte and need not await a venue motion by a creditor or party in interest.

Fancy drafting by ‘brilliant financiers and lawyers,’ the judge said, didn’t validate an uptier transaction when the ‘effect’ was to release collateral without a two-thirds vote.

Delaware judge wouldn’t allow a chapter 11 debtor to restructure the same secured debt a second time in a different venue.