21bk08123
On a motion by the reorganized debtor seeking to reopen its closed bankruptcy case to file a complaint and commence an adversary proceeding against a former board member seeking damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and for other, related relief, held:  A bankruptcy court cannot retain exclusive jurisdiction over a matter where that court had no exclusive jurisdiction prior to such an order of retention.  Further, postconfirmation jurisdiction for bankruptcy courts is narrower than that during the pendency of a bankruptcy case.  To fit within that narrow jurisdiction, a postconfirmation action must affect the amount of property for distribution or the allocation of property among creditors.  The claims sought to be pursued by the reorganized debtor do not affect the recoveries of creditors generally, as the debtor’s plan has fixed those recoveries.  In addition, the claims to be brought are not ones over which the bankruptcy court has or had exclusive jurisdiction, do not arise as a matter of bankruptcy law and are not based on matters within the court’s prior determinations in the debtor’s bankruptcy case.  Such claims are therefore equally capable of being brought in courts of general jurisdiction.  Further, as the defendants do not consent to this court’s jurisdiction and demand a jury trial on the issues, such matters may be more easily heard in such a court of general jurisdiction.  As a result, the matter is neither clearly within the bankruptcy court’s postconfirmation jurisdiction nor one which is best heard by the bankruptcy court even if it were.  The court will therefore not exercise its discretion to permit the reopening of the case for the purposes sought by the reorganized debtor.  The motion will be denied and the adversary proceeding dismissed.