The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gerard E. Lynch, District Judge
The parties to this case agree on one thing: they don't want to be here. They disagree, however, on where they should be. Plaintiffs filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, where they believe it should remain; accordingly, they have moved to remand the case to the state court. Defendants removed the case to this Court, only in order to move to transfer the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiffs' motion will be denied, and defendants' motion granted.
Plaintiff IDT Corp. formed plaintiff Winstar Holdings, LLC, in order to acquire the assets of Winstar Communications, Inc. ("Old Winstar"), and related entities. Old Winstar had filed for bankruptcy protection in the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, and was in the process of liquidation. With the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Old Winstar retained defendant Blackstone Group, L.P. as its financial advisor, and defendant Impala Partners, LLC ("Impala") as a restructuring advisor. Defendant Citicorp, Old Winstar's largest creditor, played a role in negotiating the terms of the contract between Old Winstar and Impala. Plaintiffs purchased the business assets of Old Winstar from the bankruptcy estate at an auction approved by the Bankruptcy Court for $42.5 million pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") dated December 18, 2001, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court the following day. The APA contains a forum selection clause in which the parties agree that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising out of or related to the APA. (APA § 9.10, Gold Decl. Ex. 1.) The Bankruptcy Court's order approving the sale similarly provides that that court retains "exclusive jurisdiction" to "resolve any disputes arising under or related to" the APA. (Sale Order ¶ 15, Gold Decl. Ex. 2.)
Plaintiffs allege that they were induced to enter the APA by various misrepresentations made by the defendants and by Old Winstar in an offering statement. Their claims sound solely in New York common law.
I. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand
The threshold issue in addressing plaintiffs' remand motion is whether federal jurisdiction over this case exists because it "aris[es] in" a bankruptcy case or "aris[es] under" the bankruptcy code, or merely because it is "related to" a bankruptcy case. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) provides for federal jurisdiction in either situation, if the case is merely one "related to" the Old Winstar bankruptcy, and could not otherwise be brought in a federal court, statutory provisions requiring (28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2)) or permitting (28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1)) the Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction and deferring to the state courts may apply. If, however, the case is a "core" bankruptcy proceeding that "arises under" the bankruptcy code or "arises in" a bankruptcy case, the mandatory abstention provision by its own terms do not apply and permissive abstention is less likely. Plaintiffs, accordingly, argue that the Court has, at most, "related to" jurisdiction,*fn1 while defendants contend that the case comes within the "arising in" or "arising under" headings of jurisdiction.
A. "Arising Under" Jurisdiction
The most frequently cited explanation of the meaning of "arising under" jurisdiction can be found in the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. The House Report accompanying the bill that became that Act noted that
The phrase "arising under" has a well defined and broad meaning in the jurisdictional context. By a grant of jurisdiction over all proceedings arising under title 11, the bankruptcy courts will be able to hear any matter under which a claim is made under a provision of title 11. For example, a claim of exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522 would be cognizable by the bankruptcy court, as would a claim of discrimination in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 525. Any action by the trustee under an avoiding power would be a proceeding arising under title 11, because the trustee would be claiming based on a right given by one of the sections in subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 11.
H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 445 (1977). As the leading commentator on bankruptcy law puts it, "What this language seems to mean is that, when a cause of action is one which is created by title 11, then that civil proceeding is one 'arising under title 11.'" 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[c][i] at 3-21 (15th ed. rev. 2007).
The language of the statute is self-consciously patterned on that of the general federal question jurisdiction statute, which provides for federal court jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See also U.S. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 1 ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."). While the precise meaning of "arising under" in the general federal question context has vexed courts and commentators, see 13B Wright, Miller and Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3562 (2d ed. 1984), it has been suggested that an action arises under federal law "if in order for the plaintiff to secure the relief sought he will be obliged to establish both the correctness and the applicability to his case of a proposition of federal law." Bator, Mishkin, Shapiro & Wechsler, Hart & Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System 889 (2d ed. 1973), quoted with approval in Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983). Moreover, it is well established that a case does not arise under federal law unless "the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon" federal law. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
Applying these standards to this case, it is plain that the instant case does not arise under title 11. Simply put, plaintiffs' causes of action are based on state tort law, and rest on familiar common-law principles prohibiting fraud and misrepresentation. No proposition of bankruptcy law must be established for plaintiffs to prevail, and no provision of the bankruptcy code is implicated in their allegations. The ...