- 14 -
questions interpreting substantive aspects underlying the plan.
In re Greenly Energy Holdings, Inc., 110 Bankr. 173 (Bankr. E.D.
Pa. 1990). In that case, the bankruptcy court was considering
whether it retained postconfirmation jurisdiction to decide
corporate matters, such as who owned stock, entitlement to
distributions, shareholder representation on a board of
directors, and voting rights under the confirmed plan of
reorganization. The court “[balanced] the need to retain
jurisdiction [of] post-confirmation [matters] with the need to
end the reorganization process at some point.” Id. at 180. The
court did not decide the corporate matters and relied on the
holding in In re Westholt Manufacturing, Inc., supra, and other
cases that “‘At confirmation, all the property of the estate is
vested in the debtor, thereby terminating the estate’s existence,
although the court has continued jurisdiction under section 1142
* * * to oversee the plan’s execution.’” In re Greenly Energy
Holdings, Inc., supra at 180 (quoting In re Westholt
Manufacturing, Inc., supra at 372).
The above-referenced line of chapter 11 bankruptcy cases
uniformly holds that, for purposes of determining substantive
questions regarding the estate, a “termination” occurs at the
time the debtor’s plan of reorganization is confirmed. In a
chapter 11 proceeding involving a venue question, however, the
holding of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit varied from
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011