of the proffered predicates for the action taken — whether considered singularly or cumulatively — is sufficient to affirm the appointment. Those predicates will be discussed seriatim. A. Jurisdictional Retention Provisions of the Plan Article 10 of the Plan contains expansive retention of jurisdiction provisions including the following: The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this Chapter 11 case ... (n) to enter any order, including injunctions necessary to enforce the title, rights and powers of the Debtor and to impose such limitations, restrictions, terms and conditions on such title, rights and powers that the Court may deem necessary or appropriate; (q) to make such orders as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Plan, including but not li D.N.H.1991) (<HOLDING>). Such cases as in In re Federated Dep’t
holding that a plan provision purporting to provide jurisdiction over any and all actions involving the debtor postconfirmation was invalid as beyond the scope of the bankruptcy code holding confirmation vested property in the debtor and therefore properly of the estate was not liable for postconfirmation taxes incurred by debtor holding that a bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction postconfirmation to adjudicate adversary proceeding concerning asset purchases at bankruptcy sale notwithstanding inclusion of language in the plan purporting to retain such jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court holding that postconfirmation jurisdiction was proper in light of plan provision retaining such jurisdiction holding that postconfirmation income that is not necessary to the fulfillment of the plan of reorganization does not become part of the bankruptcy estate