Term in agreed order settling adversary proceeding which provided for payment of remaining settlement proceeds to “general unsecured creditors” was ambiguous and had to be construed against the drafter consistent with the priority distribution scheme contained in the Bankruptcy Code. The Code and Rules recognize priority unsecured claims and non-priority unsecured claims, but not general unsecured claims.  To be enforceable against all parties in interest with notice, a provision contrary to the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code must use explicit, clear language.   The Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to enforce the agreed order.

Defendant asked the Court to dismiss the adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, to abstain, or to transfer venue.  Defendant argued that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1409(d), venue should be transferred to Texas because it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New Mexico.  The Court concluded that Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within New Mexico, as it solicited Plaintiff to bid on projects and entered into a construction contract with Plaintiff that included provisions invoking New Mexico law.  The Court also declined to enforce a forum selection clause requiring the case to be tried in Dallas, Texas because the proceeding was core and the public interest in centralizing bankruptcy proceedings outweighed the interests in enforcing a forum selection clause.  Finally, the Court declined to abstain under discretionary abstention provisions.

Plaintiff whose income was less than 150 percent of the official poverty guideline for a family of the size involved, and who was unable to pay the fee for filing a complaint in installments, could defer payment of the fee pending recovery of sufficient funds to pay the filing fee from a money judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor on Plaintiff’s claims raised in the adversary proceeding.  

Defendant from Dubai sought to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers from the Debtor.  The inquiry was whether defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, which in bankruptcy cases is the United States.  The Court concluded it had personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, which intentionally accepted $250,000 from the Debtor's Swiss bank account.  The Court also directed Plaintiff to amend the complaint to more clearly state his claims.