514 B.R. 377
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Elliott Plaintiffs seek a No Stay and argue lack of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Sale Order.
- Sale Order governs Old GM bankruptcy; New GM seeks to enforce protections and injunctive provisions.
- Elliott Plaintiffs claim the Sale Order may not apply to them or affect their claims.
- Court has prior decisions recognizing bankruptcy courts’ power to interpret/enforce their orders under arising in/related to jurisdiction.
- Court denies Elliott Plaintiffs’ motion, applying Phaneuf rationale and maintaining stay against these plaintiffs; proceedings are coordinated with other Ignition Switch Actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction to interpret/enforce Sale Order | Elliott asserts no jurisdiction over their claims. | Court has arising in/related to jurisdiction to enforce its orders. | Denied; jurisdiction recognized. |
| Whether No Stay should be granted for Elliott Plaintiffs | Elliott seeks a separate stay independent of Phaneuf. | No stay; needs coordination with others. | Denied; stay remains under Sale Order. |
| Applicability of Sale Order to Elliott Plaintiffs’ claims | Claims do not relate to proceedings before Court. | Claims relate to production of vehicles pre-Closing; governed by Sale Order. | Threshold applicability established; injunctive provisions apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1984) (tests for related to jurisdiction in bankruptcy)
- Publicker Industries Inc. v. United States (In re Cuyahoga Equipment Corp.), 980 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.1992) (related to vs arising in analysis)
- Ames Department Stores, 317 B.R. 260 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2004) (arising in jurisdiction to enforce orders)
- Sterling Optical (In re Sterling Optical Corp.), 302 B.R. 792 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2003) (enforcement/construction of bankruptcy order within arising in)
- Petrie Retail (Luan Investment S.E. v. Franklin 145 Corp.), 304 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.2002) (bankruptcy court post-confirmation enforcement of orders)
- Millenium Seacarriers, Inc. v. Allfirst Bank (In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.), 419 F.2d 83 (2d Cir.2005) (bankruptcy court authority to enforce/interpret orders)
- In re Motors Liquidation Co., 513 B.R. 467 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2014) (Phaneuf cited decision on related issue)
- Johns-Manville Corp. v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 517 F.3d 52 (2d Cir.2008) (recognizes bankruptcy court jurisdiction to interpret/enforce orders)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (Supreme Ct. 2009) (recognizes bankruptcy court jurisdiction to interpret/enforce orders)
- Luan Investment S.E. v. Franklin 145 Corp. (In re Petrie Retail, Inc.), 304 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.2002) (post-confirmation jurisdiction to enforce its orders)