the complaint at any time in the future in the State of Mississippi. 4 . The writers caution that "([t]he party seeking removal should take care to identify all possible bases of federal subject matter jurisdiction over the suit in its notice of removal because the district court may decline to assert jurisdiction over the case for reasons not averred in the removal notice and deny the removing party leave to amend its notice to include further grounds of federal subject matter jurisdiction after the expiration of the relevant time period.”). 14C C. Wright, A. Arthur, E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 3732 (Supp.2000). 5 . Plaintiff disputes this assertion, stating that she can find no basis in the record for Am-core's assertion that D 192 B.R. 848, 858 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>). The court, though, is of the view that when
holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan holding that the sec does not qualify as a creditor of the estate bound by the confirmed plan pursuant to  1141a and that therefore the sec would thus not be barred from enforcing the securities laws with respect to the violation arising out of the plan notwithstanding its confirmation by court order holding that dismissal of a chapter 13 case vacates a confirmed plan holding that although the plan cannot discharge the debt  the claimant may otherwise subject the debt to the provisions of a confirmed plan holding that related to jurisdiction did not reach proceeding the outcome which would have no impact on the estates handling or administration since the debtor had a confirmed liquidation plan stating when we confirmed the debtors liquidation plan the estate ceased to exist and the parties became bound to the plans provisions