the estates would be better off litigating the claims than negotiating their resolution through a plan of reorganization. In fact, the Committee itself recognizes the possibility that “nego tiations might consensually resolve” its challenges. (Bankr. Dkt. No. 2740 at 25). If the motion is granted, the Committee says, the court should not require the proposed amended complaint to be filed right away or by a certain date. The Committee instead asks leave to file the complaint at its discretion—“to potentially avoid unnecessary litigation if it appears its discussions with the parties may yield progress.” (Id.). That the litigation could prove unnecessary given the parties’ settlement discussions is justification enough for the debtors’ not to pursue it. Cf. Caesars, 808 F.3d at 1188-89 (<HOLDING>). The debtors’ justification, though, might not
holding that this court could enjoin litigation in another court if doing so would promote settlement of disputes in these bankruptcy cases holding bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue injunction of state court litigation against debtors principal stating this power under 11 usc  105a  includes the authority to enjoin litigants from pursuing actions in other courts that threaten the integrity of the debtors estate holding that bankruptcy court may enjoin federal administrative proceedings when they threaten the debtors estate holding that bankruptcy court may enjoin state environmental reclamation order holding that bankruptcy court could not enjoin third party tort claims that would not affect estate