Reported / Citable
Background
Eric Lyndell Moore sued Copper Property CTL Pass Through Trust, GLAS USA LLC, and Onyx Partners LLC for allegedly breaching the trust agreement governing the Copper Trust. The agreement was created under the confirmed Chapter 11 reorganization plan of J.C. Penney Company, Inc.
Moore filed an emergency motion requesting a status conference because the Copper Trust reportedly planned to close a $935 million sale of its remaining real-estate assets on December 22, 2025. He asserted that he and proposed intervenor Barnett Capital were owed $330 million and that distribution of the sale proceeds could dissipate the property at issue before resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. With the parties’ consent, the district judge referred the motion to Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez, who conducted the requested conference.
The Court’s Holding
The bankruptcy judge concluded that the dispute was a non-core proceeding because it involved state-law claims among nondebtors, but that it was related to a bankruptcy case because the governing trust agreement arose from J.C. Penney’s confirmed Chapter 11 plan. The judge therefore had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) to issue proposed findings and conclusions to the district court.
The judge recommended that the district court take no further action. Moore’s motion requested only a status conference, and the court had already granted that relief by scheduling and conducting one. Because Moore had not moved for an injunction or other affirmative relief, any additional action would amount to an advisory determination.
Key Takeaways
- A bankruptcy judge may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding that is related to a Chapter 11 case.
- The requested status conference fully satisfied the relief sought in Moore’s motion.
- Without a pending request for injunctive or other affirmative relief, the court found that further action would be advisory.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores that an emergency request for a status conference does not itself place asset-preservation relief before the court. A party seeking to halt distributions or preserve disputed proceeds must request concrete affirmative relief rather than rely on issues raised for discussion at a conference.
It also illustrates the limited role of a bankruptcy judge in a non-core, bankruptcy-related dispute: the bankruptcy judge may hear the matter and recommend a disposition, while the district judge enters any final order after the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).