United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs788 F.
2d 739
Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,130
In re COLONY SQUARE COMPANY, a Georgia Limited
Partnership, Debtor.
COLONY SQUARE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees. (Two Cases).
Nos. 85-8568, 85-8569.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
May 6, 1986.
Kenneth A. Shapiro, Atlanta, Ga., Thomas R. Johnson, Peter J. Kalis,
Andrew L. Gespass, Susan T. Gelder, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffappellant.
Frank M. Bird, Jr., Neal Batson, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.
Before KRAVITCH and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and
DUMBAULD,* Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
These two bankruptcy appeals involve Colony Square Company (Colony
Square) as debtor and the Prudential Insurance Company of America
(Prudential) as creditor. In re Colony Square Company, 779 F.2d 653 (11th
Cir.1986) reports the essential facts.
In Colony Square, we held that the automatic stay provision of section 362 of
the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, codified at 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101 et seq., did
not prevent the Atlanta bankruptcy court from enforcing the terms of a Chapter
XII bankruptcy case while a new case involving the same debtor, Colony
Square, was pending in the Pittsburgh bankruptcy court. We based our holding
on Central Trust Co. v. Official Creditors' Committee, 454 U.S. 354, 102 S.Ct.
695, 70 L.Ed.2d 542 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that Title 11
U.S.C. Sec. 403 precludes application of the Reform Act to cases commenced
under the former Bankruptcy Act of 1898. We also based our holding on the
Atlanta bankruptcy court's retention of exclusive jurisdiction over the Chapter
XII plan, the property, and the parties. Colony Square, 779 F.2d at 655.
3
Colony Square now appeals two related matters in which the Atlanta
bankruptcy court sought to protect its jurisdiction. The district court affirmed
the bankruptcy court's actions. We affirm.
I.
4
In 85-8569, the Atlanta bankruptcy court enjoined Colony Square, its partners,
agents, attorneys, representatives, and creditors from commencing or
continuing reorganization proceedings affecting the Colony Square property.
The bankruptcy court also enjoined Colony Square from seeking to cite
Prudential or its legal counsel for contempt, or otherwise taking any action
against Prudential and its counsel for proceeding in the Atlanta bankruptcy
court.
The sole question before us in 85-8569 is whether the district court was correct
in holding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it
enjoined Colony Square. We hold that the district court did not err. The district
court correctly concluded that the Atlanta bankruptcy court has the power, in
aid of its jurisdiction, to enjoin Colony Square from filing actions that touch on
the subject property during the pendency of the Chapter XII appeal. See In the
Matter of Macon Uplands Venture v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 624
F.2d 26 (5th Cir.1980).
Colony Square contends that, by enjoining creditors of Colony Square, the
district court issued an overbroad order; because no creditor of Colony Square
is challenging the order in this court, we do not consider this contention.
II.
7
In 85-8568, the Atlanta bankruptcy court dismissed Colony Square's Chapter
11 case that the Pittsburgh district court transferred to the Atlanta bankruptcy
court. This appeal is similar to Colony Square; in that appeal, Colony Square
objected to the Atlanta bankruptcy court's exercise of jurisdiction in the Chapter
XII case because of the pendency of a petition converted by Colony Square
from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11 in the Pittsburgh bankruptcy court.
8
The sole issue is whether the district court erred in affirming the Atlanta
bankruptcy court's dismissal of Colony Square's voluntary Chapter 11 case.
Our holding in Colony Square, 779 F.2d at 655, that, because the Atlanta
bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction, its power to act was not stayed by
the pendency of the case in Pittsburgh compels our holding that the district
court properly affirmed the dismissal of the Pittsburgh Chapter 11 case.
III.
9
These appeals restate the issues decided in Colony Square.
10
We hold that the district court properly enjoined Colony Square from
commencing or continuing reorganization proceedings affecting the Colony
Square property, from seeking to cite Prudential or its legal counsel for
contempt, or from otherwise taking any action against Prudential and its
counsel for proceeding in the Atlanta bankruptcy court. We also hold that the
Atlanta bankruptcy court properly dismissed the Chapter 11 case transferred
from the Pittsburgh district court.
11
We affirm the district court in both cases.
12
AFFIRMED.
Honorable Edward Dumbauld, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation
