U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 11— REORGANIZATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— POSTCONFIRMATION MATTERS

11 U.S.C. § 1142

Implementation of plan

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding any otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law, rule, or regulation relating to financial condition, the debtor and any entity organized or to be organized for the purpose of carrying out the plan shall carry out the plan and shall comply with any orders of the court.(b) The court may direct the debtor and any other necessary party to execute or deliver or to join in the execution or delivery of any instrument required to effect a transfer of property dealt with by a confirmed plan, and to perform any other act, including the satisfaction of any lien, that is necessary for the consummation of the plan.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2639; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 514(a), (c), (d), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 387.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–353, § 514(a), substituted “Implementation” for “Execution” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353, § 514(c), struck out the comma after “shall carry out the plan”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–353, § 514(d), inserted “a” after “by”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 238 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: In re Fed.-Mogul Global Inc., 684 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Fed.-Mogul Global Inc., 684 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “It distinguished as contrary to circuit precedent and plain statutory meaning a Ninth Circuit holding, rooted in legislative history, that limited the scope of § 1123(a) to that of a similar clause in 11 U.”
United States Tr. v. Gryphon at the Stone Mansion, Inc., 166 F.3d 552 (3d Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “5 The Bankruptcy Court focused its analysis on 11 U.S.C. § 1142 (b), which provides that, in order to implement the plan, the bankruptcy court may direct the debtor to perform such acts as are necessary for the consummation of the confirmed plan.”
Santander Consum., USA, Inc. v. Houlik (In re Houlik), 481 B.R. 661 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “11 U.S.C. § 1142 (a). . In re Lacy, 335 B.”
In re Gordon Sel-Way, Inc., Debtor. Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. United States, 270 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “In fact, several courts have held that 11 U.S.C. § 1142 provides bankruptcy courts with broad power to enforce the terms of a confirmed plan.”
Findley v. Blinken (In Re Jt. E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig.), 129 B.R. 710 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). · cites it 2× “11 U.S.C. § 1142 (1988); see Goodman v. Phillip R.”
U.S. Brass Corp. v. Travelers Ins. Grp., Inc., 301 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “In their motion, the Appellants invoke 11 U.S.C. § 1142 (b), which authorizes post-confirmation bankruptcy orders “necessary for the consummation of the plan.”
In re J & B Haldeman Holdings, LLC, 517 B.R. 910 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2014). · cites it 7× “On March 24, 2014, Black River Country Bank (“BRCB”) filed a post-confirmation *913 motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1142 (b) requesting the Court to direct transfer of real estate according to the terms of a confirmed plan.”
In re Terracor, 86 B.R. 671 (D. Utah 1988). · cites it 3× “See 11 U.S.C. § 1142 . Section 1142 provides in part: (b) The court may direct the debtor and any other necessary party to execute or deliver or to join in the execution or delivery of any instrument required to effect a transfer of property dealt with by a confirmed plan, and…”
Bank of Louisiana v. Craig's Stores of Texas, Inc., 266 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2001). “In sum, the state law causes of action asserted by Craig’s against the Bank do not bear on the interpretation or execution of the debtor’s plan and therefore do not fall within the bankruptcy court’s post-confirmation jurisdiction.”
In re Riverside Nursing Home, 137 B.R. 134 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992). · cites it 7× “(“Rednel”), the owner of the debtor’s premises as a result of a mortgage foreclosure, has applied pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1142 for a post-confirmation order directing the debtor, Riverside Nursing Home (“Riverside”), to join in the execution and delivery of an agreement…”
Booth Oil Site Admin. Grp. v. Saf.-Kleen Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 477 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). · cites it 3× “Although obviously a confirmed plan is *515 often the fruit of negotiations tantamount to contractual bargaining, the contents of a plan (both mandatory and permissive), the requirement of judicial approval, and the manner in which the parties obtain that approval, are all…”
In re Castle Home Builders, Inc., 520 B.R. 98 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014). · cites it 4× “The Reorganized Debtor filed the Motion herein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1142 (b), “which empowers the court to direct the debtor and any other necessary party to perform acts ‘necessary for the consummation of the plan.”
Show all 238 citing cases →
11 U.S.C. § 1142(a): 1 case
Claremont McKenna Coll. v. Asbestos Settlement Trust (In Re Celotex Corp.), 613 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.