AXA Re Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Day, 162 Fed. Appx. 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2006); see generally
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes County, 343 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2003). The facts of this
case do not in any way raise the spectre of impermissible forum shopping.
Centralized administration of the estate is another important consideration in the
abstention calculus, as the pervasive jurisdiction created for bankruptcy matters was crafted
primarily to achieve that end. Abstention runs counter to that goal, obviously. It functions as a
kind of safety valve, authorizing the court to abstain (thereby sending the parties to a state court
forum) when the exigencies of the case and the interests of justice overcome the need for
centralized administration. See Matter of Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir. 1986).
This adversary proceeding was commenced well prior to the confirmation of the debtor’s
plan, and was initiated by the Official Creditors’ Committee with the permission of the court
because the debtor-in-possession was not positioned (or motivated) to litigate with its auditors.
The Committee represented the constituency with the greatest economic stake in the litigation.
The DIP, meanwhile, was focused primarily on wrapping things up, after selling substantially all
of the operational assets of the estate to a third party relatively early in the case. On these facts,
the importance of centralized administration was certainly relevant at the time the litigation was
commenced, though that importance has faded somewhat now that a plan has been confirmed.
Still, there are efficiencies gained from the fact that the court in which the matter has been
brought is familiar with the context of the litigation and the general background of the debtors.
Cutting against these considerations are the fact that the professional misconduct, breach
of conduct, negligent misrepresentation, and knowing participation causes of action in the
insolvency allegation and the knowing participation action) involve relatively unsettled legal
issues. The defendant also notes that, at some point, it intends to ask for a jury. Is it unjust,