Oren L. Benton - Page 14

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011