Opinion ID: 533036
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retention-of-Jurisdiction

Text: 9 The RLEA claims that the finality and other consequences of the orders do not apply here because the reorganization court specifically retained jurisdiction by a provision in the consummation order. 4 The statute provides an exception to the general rule of finality after the entry of orders of confirmation and consummation. The property dealt with by the plan is free from claims except such as may consistently with the provisions of the plan be reserved in the order confirming the plan.... 11 U.S.C. § 205(f). 10 The specific provision in the consummation order that the RLEA cites for its argument states that jurisdiction is retained over any matter to which the plan reserved jurisdiction in the reorganization court. A section in the plan provides that jurisdiction is retained for the purposes of determining any Claims against the debtor.... The RLEA relies upon these provisions for this argument. 11 Obviously, provisions in a plan and order cannot contravene the statute. The statutory exception expressly states that retention of jurisdiction must be consistent with the provisions of the plan. Here, a provision in the plan provides for interest to begin to accrue on the liquidation date. This term is specifically defined in the plan. Thus, to find that interest began to accrue before the liquidation date would not be consistent with the plan. Such a finding would contravene the statute. In Corona, we held that a general reservation provision in a consummated plan could not be utilized to permit an alteration inconsistent with the plan itself. 102 F.2d at 963. See also In re Argyle-Lake Shore Corp., 98 F.2d 372, 373-74 (7th Cir.1938) (holding that after entry of a consummation order the court retained jurisdiction only over matters specifically reserved therein). Accordingly, we reject the contention that the broad retention-of-jurisdiction provision in the consummation order permitted reconsideration of the claim for interest. If we were to read this provision as broadly as the RLEA presses, the orders of confirmation and consummation would be virtually useless and the exceptions to finality would overtake the rule.