Pioneer Title Co. v. Housing Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a proposed settlement agreement between the debtor and its claimants would modify the confirmed plan and was prohibited by § 1127(b)
• holding bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to consider motion post-confirmation because the issue went to the implementation or execution of the plan
• finding that bankruptcy jurisdiction did exist post-confirmation over agreement by debtor to liquidate claims through binding arbitration
• stating that “[Code] § 1142(b) does not confer substantive rights so much as it empowers the bankruptcy court to enforce the unperformed terms of a confirmed plan”
• reciting the plaintiff/debtor’s argument that “the insurers (defendants) unwillingness to defend or provide coverage for the lawsuits caused the company to file for bankruptcy protection”
• “Proceedings invoking the bankruptcy court’s statutory authority to enter orders necessary for the consummation of a confirmed plan [are ‘arising in’ proceedings] because the authority can be exercised only in the context of a bankruptcy case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).