Opinion ID: 3033544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Do the claims involve the trustee’s breaching

Text: her fiduciary duty either through negligent or willful misconduct? Kashani, 190 B.R. at 886-87 (internal citation omitted). The existence of “one or more of these factors may be a basis for the bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction over the claims.” Id. at 887. As the BAP explained, analysis of these factors will “determine whether the issues affect solely the administration of the bankruptcy estate and should be heard by the bankruptcy court,” and “which claims should be tried in another forum.” Id. [17] The district court erred in imposing an irreparable harm requirement. The appropriate analysis should have been IN RE: CROWN VANTAGE 11775 guided by Kashani. In this case, the bankruptcy court carefully applied the Kashani factors and concluded that allowing the Delaware Action to proceed would impair its jurisdiction because the Delaware court would be entertaining a suit against an officer of the court by a party that failed to obtain leave to file the action. We find no abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court’s Kashani analysis. Indeed, the Fort James Entities candidly admit that they seek a race to the courthouse to obtain potentially conflicting judgments. This is exactly that type of multiple litigation and resulting conflict that the bankruptcy process is designed to avoid. The bankruptcy court was entirely justified in issuing a § 105(a) injunction.