  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
court jurisdiction would not raise specter of unending, post-confirmation jurisdiction) (quoting AstroPower, 335 B.R. at 325).
In sum, the proper retention of claims and causes of action in a plan not only protects a liquidating trustee from attack under res judicata but also may be necessary, depending on the jurisdiction, to confer jurisdiction on the bankruptcy court to hear and determine such claims and causes of actions under the bankruptcy court's "related to" jurisdiction.
In many smaller or mid- sized cases it may make sense to dispense with the liquidating trust and simply change the name of the debtor and finish the liquidation through use of the debtor and the Bankruptcy Court.
In some other cases, following the sale of the assets with the confirmation of a liquidating plan is the not best path. For example, there may not be sufficient unencumbered assets to fund the rest of the case, or there may not be enough assets to satisfy the various types of claims that must be paid in full in order to obtain confirmation. In such circumstances a dismissal or as it is sometimes called a "structured dismissal" may make more sense. An article in the American Bankruptcy Institute Journal Volume XXIX, Number 5 at page 44 entitled Structured Chapter 11.
Dismissals: A Viable and Growing Alternative after Asset Sales by Norman Pernick and
G. David Dean describes this phenomenon.
In still other cases, particularly those where one or more plan confirmation requirements cannot be met and a dismissal is not a useful alternative the parties should consider conversion to Chapter 7. This alternative has a good deal of its own baggage, but there are cases for which it will be the best alternative.
