Defendants sought to dismiss the adversary proceeding on the grounds that, inter alia, the Court lacked jurisdiction and the proceeding was moot.  The Court analyzed dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6).  The Court determined movants could not seek dismissal on behalf of defendants they did not represent, that the matter was not moot based on an earlier settlement, and that it had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants who were served in the United States.

Creditors whose unsecured, non-priority unsecured claims were disallowed against the bankruptcy estate lacked both Article III constitutional standing and statutory standing under § 1109(b) and §1128() to object to the Chapter 11 Trustee’s Chapter 11 plan.  Creditors did not have a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the Chapter 11 plan and could not demonstrate that they would suffer any injury in fact resulting from any of the plan’s provisions. 

Class proofs of claim are permitted in bankruptcy cases.  The bankruptcy court may, in its discretion, apply Federal Rule 23 (governing class actions) through Bankruptcy Rule 9014 and Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to the claims allowance process to allow a class representative to file a class proof of claim on behalf of all similarly situated members of the class.  The following factors are relevant to the Court’s decision to apply Rule 7023 to allow the filing of a class proof of claim:  whether the class has been certified; notice of the bankruptcy claims bar date to class members or putative class members; whether public policy reasons favoring class action suits should be applied to the claims process; the nature of the class action, including whether it is an opt in or opt out class;  the timing of the request to file a class proof of claim; whether potential jurisdictional issues impede the filing of a class proof of claim; and the potential impact of the filing of a class proof of claim om the debtor’s reorganization prospects, the potential prejudice to other creditors, and the potential benefit to class members. 

Plaintiffs sought attorney fees in connection with obtaining an order compelling discovery.  The Court found that under Rule 37(a)(5), Plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable fees incurring in drafting the motion to compel, attending hearings on the motion to compel, preparing a discovery order, and preparing the attorney fee affidavit.  Plaintiffs were not entitled to fees incurred in their good faith attempt to obtain discovery or for reviewing the documents that were produced.