Brian Shaw discusses recent Fifth and Ninth Circuit decisions, which underscore that bankruptcy courts’ post-confirmation jurisdiction – particularly “related to” jurisdiction – is limited and cannot be created by retention of jurisdiction language alone, in Law360. In one matter, the Fifth Circuit held that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over a contract dispute between a reorganized debtor and a nondebtor that arose from agreements entered into long after plan confirmation, emphasizing that post-confirmation jurisdiction exists only where a dispute truly pertains to execution or implementation of the confirmed plan. In another matter, the Ninth Circuit rejected jurisdiction over a dispute between two nondebtors, despite its tangential connection to prior bankruptcy rulings, finding the relationship too tenuous to affect the estate or require interpretation or enforcement of bankruptcy court orders.

Together, these cases reinforce that “related to” jurisdiction is a malleable concept and does not persist merely because a dispute has historical ties to a bankruptcy case or to prior court orders. Although bankruptcy courts may interpret and enforce their own order when necessary to carry out a plan, that authority is not limitless. The decisions caution practitioners that subject-matter jurisdiction is never waivable and can undo years of litigation if lacking, making it critical to assess and disclose the risk that post-confirmation disputes – especially those involving nondebtors or post-confirmation conduct – may ultimately belong in a court of general jurisdiction rather than in bankruptcy court.

To read more, click here.