Opinion ID: 786599
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pacor Test

Text: 33 With related to jurisdiction, Congress intended to grant bankruptcy courts comprehensive jurisdiction so that they could `deal efficiently and expeditiously' with matters connected with the bankruptcy estate. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 308, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir.1984)). Nonetheless, a bankruptcy court's related to jurisdiction cannot be limitless. Id. We set forth the seminal test for determining the boundaries of related to jurisdiction in Pacor, 743 F.2d at 994. 6 34 Under Pacor, bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hear a proceeding if the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy. Id. In In re Marcus Hook, 943 F.2d 261, we emphasized that a key word in this test is conceivable and that [c]ertainty, or even likelihood, is not a requirement. Id. at 264. In Pacor, we observed: [T]he proceeding need not necessarily be against the debtor or against the debtor's property. An action is related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor's rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate. 743 F.2d at 994. The Supreme Court has explained that the critical component of the Pacor test is that bankruptcy courts have no jurisdiction over proceedings that have no effect on the estate of the debtor. Celotex, 514 U.S. at 308 n. 6, 115 S.Ct. 1493. 35