*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 19, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 05-11147

In the Matter of NETWORK CANCER CARE, L.P.,

Debtor.

LLOYD WARD & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE and DIANE REED,

Chapter 11 Trustee, 

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:04-CV-2482)

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Network Cancer Care, L.P. (“Debtor”) hired Appellant Lloyd

Ward & Associates, P.C. (“Appellant”) to perform bankruptcy-related

legal services. Debtor paid Appellant $63,287.72 for these
2Namely, the court found that (1) a serious conflict of

interest existed between Debtor and Appellant’s other clients,

and (2) Appellant facilitated the improper sale of Debtor’s

primary asset. 

3The bankruptcy court also found that it had jurisdiction

under § 1334 because Appellant began performance prior to the

reorganization plan’s “effective date.” On appeal, the district

court found it unnecessary to address that issue after finding

that jurisdiction existed under the bankruptcy court’s

alternative reasoning. We find no error in the district court’s

analysis. 

2

services. However, the bankruptcy court for various reasons2

ordered Appellant to disgorge the entire sum.

Appellant argued that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction

over the matter because the services were performed and payment was

received after the confirmation of Debtor’s reorganization plan.

The plan was confirmed on September 26, 2003; the services were

performed between October 14, 2003 and February 26, 2004; and the

payments were received sometime thereafter. 

The bankruptcy court held that it still had jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1334 because Appellant’s services pertained to the

implementation or execution of Debtor’s plan of reorganization.3

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision that it

had jurisdiction under § 1334. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant presents to this Court the same jurisdictional

argument it presented to the bankruptcy and district courts--i.e.,

the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction because the services were

performed and payment was received post-confirmation. We agree with

both courts below that Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. 
4Appellant also argues that some of the $63,287.72 was paid

for services related to the sale of Debtor’s primary asset. Those

services, Appellant impliedly contends, did not pertain to the

implementation or execution of the reorganization plan. We

disagree. A matter pertains to the implementation or execution

of the plan if it “impact[s] compliance with or completion of the

reorganization plan.” See In re U.S. Brass, 301 F.3d at 305. The

3

We are aware that a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over a

matter is more limited post-confirmation than it is preconfirmation. See Eljer Indus., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Group Inc.

(In re U.S. Brass Corp.), 301 F.3d 296, 303-05 (5th Cir. 2002).

Nevertheless, jurisdiction still exists post-confirmation for

“matters pertaining to the implementation or execution of the

plan.” Id. at 304 (quoting Bank of Louisiana v. Craig’s Stores of

Texas (In re Craig’s Stores of Texas), 266 F.3d 388, 390-91 (5th

Cir. 2001)). 

Without doubt, Appellant’s services “pertained to the

implementation or execution of” Debtor’s plan of reorganization.

See id. Debtor substituted Appellant as “COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR.” At

the time of substitution, Debtor, through representation by

Appellant, advised the bankruptcy court that Appellant was being

retained to deal with “[Debtor’s] continued compliance with the

[plan of reorganization], for which representation [was]

necessary.” From that point forward, all correspondence with Debtor

related to its reorganization went through Appellant. Therefore,

both courts below correctly determined that the bankruptcy court

had jurisdiction over the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1334.4
bankruptcy court found that Debtor’s sale of its primary asset, a

sale facilitated by Appellant, was improper. This led to the

bankruptcy court’s revocation of Debtor’s plan. Therefore,

because the sale led directly to the plan’s revocation, the

services Appellant performed in relation to that sale clearly

impacted compliance with and the completion of the plan.

4

Finding no reversible error in this or any of the district

court’s other findings implicated in Appellant’s challenges, we

AFFIRM. 

AFFIRMED.