Nu Ride Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London Subscribed, 24-50179

Lordstown Motors Corp. (now Nu Ride Inc.) and affiliates manufactured electric trucks and faced multiple shareholder lawsuits and government investigations regarding alleged misconduct.
The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on June 27, 2023; the reorganization plan was confirmed in March 2024 and became effective shortly after.
Nu Ride sought a declaratory judgment that its D&O insurance policy with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London required the insurer to cover costs related to the securities lawsuits and government investigations.
Lloyd’s denied coverage, claiming acts pre-dated the policy's retroactive date per the policy exclusion.
After plan confirmation, Nu Ride filed an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court to dispute the coverage denial; Lloyd’s moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Bankruptcy Court's Subject Matter Jurisdiction	Court retained jurisdiction via plan and order; insurance action is critical for creditor recovery	Jurisdiction retention language is too general; plan does not make insurance action essential	Retention language alone does not confer jurisdiction
"Related to" Jurisdiction Post-Confirmation	Insurance proceeds directly affect creditor distributions per plan	Lawsuit is not closely tied to plan execution; only indirect benefit to creditors	No close nexus; issue not central to plan administration
Specific Identification in Plan	Retained causes include insurance; schedules mention insurance actions generally	Lack of specific identification; creditors were uninformed of this suit on plan vote	General retention too vague to create jurisdiction
Effect on Creditors	Coverage recoupment is vital for creditor/shareholder recovery; plan contemplates insurance proceeds distributed	Recovery runs to reorganized debtor and directors, not estate; creditors' benefit too remote	Insufficient nexus: lawsuit not crucial to plan

In re Resorts Int'l, Inc., 372 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2004) (articulates the standard for post-confirmation subject matter jurisdiction: requires a 'close nexus' to the plan)
In re Pacor, Inc., 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1984) (sets forth the standard for 'related to' bankruptcy jurisdiction: proceeding must have a conceivable effect on the estate)
Chicot Cnty. Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371 (1940) (federal courts have authority to determine their own jurisdiction)
In re Exide Techs., 544 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2008) (reiterates the 'conceivable effect' test for 'related to' jurisdiction)
In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc., 943 F.2d 261 (3d Cir. 1991) (relevant for the four jurisdictional bases in bankruptcy courts)