In Re Enron Corp. Securities

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a bankruptcy court does not lose jurisdiction over “pre confirmation claims based on pre- confirmation activities”
• finding that a bankruptcy court does not lose jurisdiction over “pre- confirmation claims based on pre-confirmation activities”
• finding the single-action requirement satisfied where defendants removed the suits as “related to” a bankruptcy proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334
• disagreeing with plaintiffs’ argument that defendants should not be able to use an MDL to “create a ‘covered class action’” because “neither the MDL nor SLUSAis so limited”
• “Notwithstanding its statement that bankruptcy jurisdiction exists after plan confirmation only ‘for matters pertaining to the implementation or execution of the plan,’ the facts in Craig’s Stores were narrow; they involved post-confirmation claims based on post-confirmation activities.”
• “Craig's Stores does not conflict with Celotex because the Craig's Stores decision did not divest the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over any claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).