Finality of Confirmed Chapter 11 Plans and Bankruptcy “Related-To” Jurisdiction:
Commentary on Choudhri v. National Bank of Kuwait (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025)

I. Introduction

This Fifth Circuit decision arises out of unusually protracted and multi-front litigation over a Houston office building owned by the Chapter 11 debtor, Galleria 2425 Owner, L.L.C. The central disputant, Ali Choudhri, is the individual behind the debtor and several affiliated entities. The appellee, National Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K.P., New York Branch (“NBK” or “the Bank”), was the debtor’s secured lender on the property.

The controversy in this appeal centers on:

who owns certain property tax liens against the building; and
whether NBK breached an August 22, 2022 Confidential Settlement Agreement (“CSA”) that addressed those liens.

After filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case asserting a right to those tax liens, Choudhri also filed a separate Texas state court suit against NBK seeking a declaration that he—not NBK—owned the liens, and asking the court to compel NBK to acknowledge that ownership. NBK removed that state court action to the bankruptcy court as an adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court denied remand and dismissed the adversary proceeding. The district court, acting in its appellate capacity, affirmed. Choudhri then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in Choudhri v. National Bank of Kuwait, No. 25‑20096 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025), addresses three key clusters of issues:

Bankruptcy jurisdiction and removal: whether the bankruptcy court had “related-to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and whether removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 was proper.
Effect of a confirmed Chapter 11 plan and prior bankruptcy orders: whether Choudhri could continue to litigate tax lien ownership and breach-of-CSA claims after the confirmed plan and repeated prior rulings had already addressed those matters.
Procedural and remedial questions:
- dismissal for failure to effect service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m);
- dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6);
- denial of leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) on futility grounds; and
- forfeiture of an argument based on a contractual forum-selection clause.

Although the opinion is unpublished and thus not precedential under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, it offers a clear and forceful reaffirmation of two practical doctrines:

filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case both anchors jurisdiction and channels related disputes into the bankruptcy forum; and
a confirmed Chapter 11 plan and related final bankruptcy orders have a powerful, binding effect that precludes serial, collateral re-litigation of the same issues in other guises or forums.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit (Judge Higginson, joined by Judges Southwick and Douglas) affirmed the district court’s affirmance of two bankruptcy court orders:

the order denying Choudhri’s motion to remand the removed state court suit; and
the order dismissing Choudhri’s third amended complaint (the adversary proceeding).

The court’s essential determinations were:

A. Bankruptcy Jurisdiction and Removal

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b): The court held that the bankruptcy court had at least “related-to” jurisdiction over the removed state court suit because the suit sought adjudication of the same tax liens that were the subject of Choudhri’s own proof of claim (Claim No. 21) in the bankruptcy case. The outcome could “conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy,” satisfying the Fifth Circuit’s “conceivable effect” test from In re Wood.
Core jurisdiction triggered by filing a proof of claim: By filing Claim No. 21 for the tax liens, Choudhri submitted himself to the bankruptcy court’s equitable jurisdiction and triggered “allowance or disallowance of claims,” which is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), consistent with Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990).
Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1452: Because the district court had jurisdiction under § 1334, NBK properly removed the state court action as a bankruptcy-related proceeding. The Fifth Circuit rejected the suggestion that post-confirmation jurisdiction limits from In re Craig’s Stores applied, because the suit was filed pre-confirmation and involved a prepetition contract (the CSA).

B. Dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding

Service of process (Rule 4(m)): The bankruptcy court found, and the Fifth Circuit noted, that NBK was never properly served with the state court petitions or complaints, either before or after removal. The adversary proceeding was dismissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Although Choudhri argued he had served through the bankruptcy court’s CM/ECF system, he cited no authority for such service satisfying Texas state law or Rule 4.
Failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)): More significantly, the Fifth Circuit upheld dismissal on substantive grounds:
- The bankruptcy court had already determined that NBK did not breach the CSA.
- The confirmed Chapter 11 plan explicitly allowed NBK’s “NBK Tax Claim” in the amount of $1,696,384.85 and extinguished Choudhri’s competing Claim No. 21 as an “Insider Claim.”
- Choudhri later settled with the Chapter 11 trustee and agreed to withdraw Claim No. 21.
- Choudhri did not object to confirmation of the plan and did not appeal the confirmation order.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a) and the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Matter of LaHaye, 17 F.4th 513 (5th Cir. 2021), these plan provisions and confirmation findings are binding on Choudhri and preclude him from re-litigating tax lien ownership or a CSA breach claim by repackaging them as conversion or unjust enrichment in an adversary proceeding.

C. Denial of Leave to Amend

The bankruptcy court denied leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2), finding that “Choudhri has no valid claims,” rendering amendment futile. The Fifth Circuit agreed, emphasizing that Choudhri’s own stated reason for amendment—to “more fully” set out the same acts and omissions—confirmed he sought to pursue the same barred theories. Citing Reddick v. Medtronic, Inc., the court held that amendment would have been futile.

D. Forum-Selection Clause Argument Forfeited

Choudhri also argued that the bankruptcy court should have remanded the suit to state court because the CSA contained a forum-selection clause specifying Harris County, Texas state court. The Fifth Circuit held that he forfeited this argument:

He did not adequately raise the forum-selection clause in the bankruptcy court; his cited “supplemental brief” did not, on review, contain any such argument.
Under Norris v. Causey, a party abandons or forfeits an argument by failing to adequately brief it below.

Having found that removal was proper, that jurisdiction existed, and that the adversary complaint failed as a matter of law, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, which itself had affirmed the bankruptcy court.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

1. Appellate Standards of Review

The court recited the familiar standard from Matter of Highland Capital Management, 57 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2023), and In re ASARCO, L.L.C., 650 F.3d 593 (5th Cir. 2011):

The court of appeals, reviewing a district court sitting as a bankruptcy appellate court, applies the same standards directly to the bankruptcy court’s findings and conclusions.
Conclusions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo.
Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.

This framing is important because much of the dispute turned on legal questions: the scope of bankruptcy jurisdiction, the effect of plan confirmation, and the sufficiency of the complaint—each reviewed anew by the Fifth Circuit.

2. Bankruptcy Jurisdiction and Core Proceedings

The opinion tracks the statutory scheme:

28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) grants district courts original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all civil proceedings:
- “arising under” title 11 (bankruptcy law itself),
- “arising in” cases under title 11 (administrative matters that wouldn’t exist but for the bankruptcy), and
- “related to” cases under title 11 (proceedings whose outcome could conceivably affect the estate).
28 U.S.C. § 157 allocates that jurisdiction to bankruptcy judges and distinguishes:
- core proceedings (which the bankruptcy court may hear and finally determine), including:
  - “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate” (§ 157(b)(2)(B));
  - “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims” (§ 157(b)(2)(C));
  - “confirmations of plans” (§ 157(b)(2)(L));
  - “orders approving the sale of property” (§ 157(b)(2)(N)); and
  - “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor–creditor relationship” (§ 157(b)(2)(O));
- non-core but “related to” proceedings (which a bankruptcy court may hear, but may be more constrained in entering final judgment, subject to consent and constitutional limits).

The court cites Matter of Baudoin, 981 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1993), to emphasize that litigants often conflate the jurisdictional statute (§ 1334) with the core/non-core allocation in § 157; the former is about whether the federal courts may hear the dispute, the latter about which component of the federal system (district vs. bankruptcy court) may enter final judgment.

3. “Related-To” Jurisdiction – In re Wood

The Fifth Circuit relied on its classic articulation of “related-to” jurisdiction from In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1987): a proceeding is “related to” a bankruptcy case if its outcome could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered. The court emphasized the breadth of this test by quoting “conceivably” in italics.

Here, because the state court suit addressed the same tax liens that were asserted in Choudhri’s proof of claim (Claim No. 21) and in NBK’s own proof of claim (Claim No. 13), the outcome would plainly affect the treatment of claims and distributions in the bankruptcy. That satisfied “related-to” jurisdiction.

4. Post-Confirmation Limits – In re Craig’s Stores

In re Craig’s Stores of Tex., Inc., 266 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2001), is often cited for the proposition that post-confirmation jurisdiction narrows substantially; the bankruptcy court no longer administers a traditional “estate,” and “related-to” jurisdiction over post-confirmation disputes can become tenuous.

The Fifth Circuit clarified that Craig’s Stores was not a bar here because:

the removed state court suit was filed pre-confirmation; and
the dispute arose from a prepetition contract (the 2022 CSA).

Thus, this case fit squarely within the Wood “conceivable effect” framework, rather than the more restrictive post-confirmation context of Craig’s Stores.

5. Effect of Filing a Proof of Claim – Langenkamp v. Culp

The opinion invokes Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (1990), for the principle that by filing a proof of claim a creditor:

triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims; and
subjects himself to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power over that claim.

This is important for two reasons:

It underscores that the tax lien dispute was properly at the center of the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction once Choudhri filed Claim No. 21.
It undercuts the notion that a parallel state court forum could validly adjudicate ownership of those liens after the creditor has chosen to participate in the claims process.

6. Binding Effect of a Confirmed Plan – Matter of LaHaye and 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a)

Section 1141(a) of the Bankruptcy Code states that the provisions of a confirmed Chapter 11 plan bind the debtor and “any creditor”, among others. The Fifth Circuit, in Matter of LaHaye, 17 F.4th 513 (5th Cir. 2021), emphasized that:

a confirmed plan is effectively a final judgment on the treatment of claims;
it binds creditors regardless of whether they actively objected; and
its binding effect extends even to third parties whose rights are implicated in the plan’s allocation of the debtor’s obligations.

In Choudhri, the court deployed this doctrine to conclude:

The plan allowed NBK’s tax lien claim in a specific amount;
The plan classified and extinguished Choudhri’s competing tax lien claim as an “Insider Claim”; and
Therefore, as a matter of § 1141(a), these plan provisions bind Choudhri and preclude renewed litigation of tax lien ownership or the Bank’s alleged mishandling of those liens.

7. Forfeiture, Futility, and Leave to Amend – Norris and Reddick

Two additional Fifth Circuit decisions appear in narrower roles:

Norris v. Causey, 869 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2017): used to illustrate that arguments not properly raised or briefed below are forfeited or abandoned. Choudhri’s attempt to rely on the CSA’s forum-selection clause fell into this category.
Reddick v. Medtronic, Inc., 2023 WL 5447272 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2023): cited for the uncontroversial proposition that where a plaintiff’s proposed amendment would not cure the fundamental legal deficiency of the claim, denying leave to amend as futile is proper.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction and Propriety of Removal

The Fifth Circuit began by disentangling jurisdictional concepts. Choudhri argued the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the removed state court suit. The court responded in two steps:

a. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)

Section 1334(b) grants jurisdiction over proceedings “arising under,” “arising in,” or “related to” a bankruptcy case. Crucially:

On April 9, 2024, Choudhri filed Proof of Claim No. 21, asserting a secured claim of over $4.17 million based on the tax liens, attaching an assignment of those liens.
The trustee objected to that claim, triggering a core proceeding regarding its allowance or disallowance.
On April 26, 2024, Choudhri filed the Texas state court suit, seeking a declaration that he owned the same tax liens and asking the state court to compel NBK to recognize that ownership.

Because the state court suit concerned the same asset (the tax liens) that was already central to the bankruptcy claims process, its resolution would plainly affect:

the distribution of assets; and
the relative rights of NBK and Choudhri vis-à-vis the estate.

Under In re Wood, this easily satisfied “related-to” jurisdiction, and more strongly, intertwined with core proceedings regarding claim allowance.

b. Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1452

Section 1452(a) allows removal of any civil claim to the district court if that court has jurisdiction under § 1334. NBK removed the state court action to the bankruptcy court (through the district court’s reference).

The timing and nature of the dispute were important:

The suit was filed before plan confirmation, when the estate was still being administered.
The claims arose out of a prepetition settlement agreement (the CSA) and pre-bankruptcy tax liens.
Craig’s Stores’ restrictive view of post-confirmation jurisdiction therefore did not apply; the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction remained robust.

The court thus held that NBK’s removal under § 1452 was proper and that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction.

2. Dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding

a. Service of Process – Rule 4(m)

The bankruptcy court noted that NBK was never properly served with the state court pleadings or with the adversary complaints after removal. Choudhri claimed that serving a copy of the petition via the bankruptcy court’s CM/ECF system sufficed, but he provided no supporting authority.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 90 days, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice (or order service within a specified time), absent good cause. The bankruptcy court relied on this as a preliminary ground for dismissal.

The Fifth Circuit, noting that dismissal under Rule 4(m) is without prejudice and that the lower courts had also reached the merits, chose to “pretermit” (bypass) any procedural forfeiture discussion and instead address the substantive Rule 12(b)(6) basis that the district court had emphasized. This avoided the need to decide whether the service issue was independently dispositive.

b. Failure to State a Claim – Rule 12(b)(6)

On the merits, the Fifth Circuit endorsed the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that Choudhri’s third amended complaint failed to state any viable claim. The reasoning rested on the interplay between:

Prior fully adjudicated matters (the bank’s claim objection, the credit-bid motion, the confirmation hearing);
Plan terms that expressly resolved the tax liens; and
Choudhri’s own litigation history (including settlement and withdrawal of Claim No. 21).

Key points the court highlighted:

Repeated rulings on the tax liens and the CSA.
- Objection to NBK’s Proof of Claim No. 13: A Choudhri-controlled entity (2425 WL, L.L.C.) objected, asserting NBK did not own the tax liens. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection, holding that the tax lien claims were valid, subject to the confirmed plan.
- Motion to prohibit NBK from credit bidding: Choudhri and 2425 WL sought to bar NBK from credit bidding on the property based on an alleged dispute over the tax liens. After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court found that the evidence did not support an alleged breach of the CSA by NBK.
- Confirmation hearing: The court held a two-day evidentiary hearing, at which Choudhri appeared and testified. In confirming the plan, the court expressly rejected the argument that NBK breached the CSA and found Choudhri not credible.
Plan terms governing the tax liens.
- The plan defined the “NBK Tax Claim” as NBK’s claim for tax liens in the aggregate amount of $1,696,384.85 for tax years 2019 and 2020, noting that these liens had been assigned to NBK pursuant to the CSA.
- The plan provided that this NBK Tax Claim “shall be Allowed” in that amount.
- It also designated Claim No. 21 (Choudhri’s competing tax lien claim) as an “Insider Claim” and provided that all Insider Claims, including Claim No. 21, would be canceled and extinguished.
Finality and binding effect.
- Choudhri did not object to plan confirmation and did not appeal the confirmation order.
- He later settled with the Chapter 11 trustee and agreed to withdraw Claim No. 21.
- Under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a) and LaHaye, these plan provisions and the confirmation order bind Choudhri and foreclose his attempt to relitigate the same issues via a separate suit styled as breach of contract, conversion, or unjust enrichment.
Vexatious, repetitive litigation.
- The bankruptcy court noted, in a later gatekeeping order, that the purpose of the confirmed plan was to “end the vexatious litigation” between Choudhri-controlled entities and NBK.
- The court stressed that it had “ample opportunity” to assess and repeatedly reject Choudhri’s factual and legal contentions about the tax liens and the CSA, yet he continued to recycle them.
- This background underscored why the adversary complaint could not be cured by further factual elaboration; it sought to revisit settled questions.

Against this backdrop, the Fifth Circuit concluded that, as a matter of law, Choudhri’s claims could not succeed. The tax liens were adjudicated in NBK’s favor; the CSA was found not to have been breached by NBK; and the plan extinguished Choudhri’s competing claim. Repurposing those allegations in a new complaint did not create a new, viable cause of action.

3. Denial of Leave to Amend – Rule 15(a)(2)

Rule 15(a)(2) directs that courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” But the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have long recognized that leave is properly denied where:

the plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies;
amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice; or
amendment would be futile because the amended pleading would still fail as a matter of law.

Here, Choudhri’s explanation for seeking leave was revealing: he wanted to “set out more fully the acts or omissions complained of in one place.” In other words, he sought to restate or amplify the very theories the bankruptcy court had already ruled out.

The bankruptcy court concluded that “Choudhri has no valid claims” and that this alone was “sufficient grounds to deny leave to amend.” The Fifth Circuit agreed, analogizing to Reddick, where any proposed amendment would have been futile. Given:

the binding effect of the plan;
the prior adverse evidentiary findings about the CSA; and
the settlement and withdrawal of Claim No. 21,

no amount of additional factual detail could create a viable cause of action against NBK arising from the same nucleus of facts.

4. Forum-Selection Clause and Forfeiture

Finally, Choudhri attempted to avoid federal resolution of his claims by relying on a forum-selection clause in the CSA, which allegedly required that disputes be litigated in Harris County, Texas state courts.

The Fifth Circuit declined to engage on the merits of that contention because the argument had not been properly preserved:

NBK argued that Choudhri never raised the forum-selection clause below.
Choudhri, in turn, referenced a “supplemental brief” filed in the bankruptcy court, but the Fifth Circuit reviewed that brief and found that it did not in fact raise the contractual clause.

Under Norris v. Causey, a party forfeits an argument by failing to adequately brief it in the lower court. Because the forum-selection clause was not timely or properly presented to the bankruptcy court, Choudhri was barred from raising it for the first time on appeal.

Substantively, the opinion leaves unaddressed how, had the issue been preserved, such a clause would interact with bankruptcy jurisdiction and removal under § 1452. By disposing of the issue on forfeiture grounds, the court avoids weighing contractual venue selection against the statutory mandate and structure of bankruptcy jurisdiction.

C. Impact and Implications

1. Reinforcing the Channeling Effect of Proofs of Claim

One of the most practical implications of this decision is the powerful channeling effect of filing a proof of claim:

Once a creditor files a proof of claim, disputes about the validity and extent of that claim almost invariably become core matters to be resolved within the bankruptcy case.
Parallel suits in state court over the same underlying right (here, tax lien ownership under the CSA) are susceptible to removal and resolution by the bankruptcy court.
Attempts to maintain “dual-track” litigation—one in the claims process, one in state court—will often fail, especially when the claims are virtually identical.

Practically, creditors must understand that by submitting a claim they are committing themselves to adjudicating related disputes in the bankruptcy forum. This can be beneficial (centralized, specialized adjudication) but also eliminates the option to persist in a conflicting state court strategy.

2. Confirmed Plans as Final Judgments with Broad Preclusive Reach

The opinion also underscores the finality of confirmed Chapter 11 plans:

Plan provisions that classify and allow or disallow claims are not merely administrative directions; they operate like a final judgment on the rights and obligations they describe.
Creditors who believe a plan mischaracterizes their rights must object, litigate those issues at confirmation, and, if necessary, appeal.
Absent such timely challenge, creditors are generally precluded from collaterally attacking plan treatment through later adversary proceedings or independent state litigation.

Choudhri illustrates the consequences of failing to press those objections at the right time:

Instead of objecting to confirmation on the ground that NBK’s tax lien claim should not be allowed, or that Claim No. 21 should not be extinguished, Choudhri remained effectively passive at confirmation.
After confirmation, he attempted to attack the same allocation of rights via a separate adversary proceeding—that effort was properly dismissed as inconsistent with § 1141(a) and prior orders.

3. Limits on Serial, Vexatious Bankruptcy Litigation

The opinion’s references to “vexatious” litigation and to a gatekeeping order in the plan are a warning to repeat litigants:

Courts are willing to impose gatekeeping mechanisms in plans or orders to curb abusive, repetitive filings.
Once a bankruptcy court has considered and rejected a party’s factual and legal arguments multiple times, that party risks being labeled vexatious if he persists without genuinely new facts or law.
Such a label can support provisions requiring court permission before new filings, sanctions for bad-faith litigation, or other remedial measures.

4. Forum-Selection Clauses in the Shadow of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

Although the Fifth Circuit did not decide the issue on the merits, Choudhri indirectly highlights the tension between:

contractual forum-selection clauses, which parties may bargain for; and
statutory bankruptcy jurisdiction, which seeks centralized, efficient resolution of all matters affecting the estate.

The takeaway is procedural and strategic:

If a party believes a forum-selection clause should control notwithstanding bankruptcy removal, that argument must be:
- explicitly raised,
- adequately briefed, and
- supported by authority
in the bankruptcy court at the earliest possible stage.
Failure to do so, as here, risks complete forfeiture of the argument on appeal.

5. Practical Message to Creditors and Insiders

For creditors and insiders in a Chapter 11 case, Choudhri delivers a practical message:

Do not assume you can litigate property and contract disputes in state court once you have submitted those same disputes into the bankruptcy system through proofs of claim or plan negotiations.
Use the confirmation process—objections, evidentiary hearings, and appeals—to resolve contested issues about settlement agreements, lien ownership, or claim treatment.
Once the plan is confirmed and becomes final, the window to challenge its allocation of rights and obligations closes sharply.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. “Arising Under,” “Arising In,” and “Related To” – What Do They Mean?

Arising under (title 11): Cases or proceedings that are created by the Bankruptcy Code itself (for example, preference actions under § 547, discharge determinations under § 523).
Arising in (a case under title 11): Proceedings that exist only because there is a bankruptcy case (for example, allowance of claims, use of cash collateral, confirmation of a plan).
Related to: Proceedings that could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate, even if they are based purely on state law (for example, a state-law contract dispute where the outcome will determine whether the debtor owes a significant debt).

In Choudhri, the tax lien ownership dispute is at least “related to,” and closely intertwined with, “arising in” proceedings concerning claim allowance and plan confirmation.

2. Core vs. Non-Core Proceedings

Core proceedings (listed in § 157(b)(2)) go to the heart of the bankruptcy process—claims administration, plan confirmation, use and sale of estate property. Bankruptcy judges may enter final judgments in core proceedings.
Non-core but related proceedings are those that affect the estate but are primarily state-law or non-bankruptcy disputes. Bankruptcy judges may hear them, but constitutional and statutory considerations can restrict final judgment authority unless parties consent.

Once Choudhri filed a proof of claim, the dispute over the tax liens became a core allowance/disallowance issue, bringing it squarely within the bankruptcy court’s central functions.

3. Proofs of Claim and Their Consequences

A proof of claim is a filing in which a creditor asserts what it believes it is owed by the debtor and on what basis. By filing a proof of claim, a creditor:

invokes the bankruptcy court’s claims allowance process;
submits to the court’s jurisdiction to decide that claim;
becomes subject to the court’s equitable powers (for example, equitable subordination, counterclaims by the estate); and
may foreclose its ability to litigate the same underlying debt or collateral rights in a different forum in parallel.

4. Confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan

A confirmed Chapter 11 plan is essentially a court-approved reorganization contract:

It specifies how each class of claims will be treated (paid in full, partially, converted to equity, canceled, etc.).
Once confirmed and unappealed, it is binding on the debtor and all creditors, including those who did not actively participate.
It usually replaces prior rights with the rights specified in the plan (for example, old debt instruments may be canceled and replaced with new obligations).

In this case, the plan:

allowed NBK’s tax lien claim in a defined amount;
extinguished Choudhri’s competing claim as an “Insider Claim”; and
channeled distributions accordingly (subject to NBK’s becoming the purchaser, in which case its tax claim would not receive a separate distribution).

5. Service of Process after Removal – Rule 4(m)

When a case is removed from state court:

State-court service rules govern before removal; but
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 4(m) govern service in the removed case after removal.

Failure to properly serve a defendant within 90 days of filing triggers potential dismissal, unless the plaintiff can show good cause and the court grants more time. Electronic filing of a document as an exhibit in a related matter does not, without more, constitute valid “service of process.”

6. Forum-Selection Clauses vs. Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

A forum-selection clause is a contractual term specifying where disputes must be litigated (e.g., “state court in Harris County, Texas”). Normally, courts give such clauses substantial weight. However:

Bankruptcy jurisdiction is statutory and designed to centralize all matters affecting the estate in a single forum.
Even if a forum-selection clause exists, parties must timely and properly assert it in the bankruptcy court to seek abstention or remand under § 1334(c) or § 1452(b).
Failing to raise it in the bankruptcy court, as in Choudhri, typically forfeits the argument on appeal.

V. Conclusion

Choudhri v. National Bank of Kuwait offers a pointed reminder of core bankruptcy principles rather than announcing a wholly new rule. It demonstrates how:

Filing a proof of claim draws related disputes into the bankruptcy forum and justifies removal of parallel state actions under § 1452.
A confirmed Chapter 11 plan, and the findings made in connection with confirmation, bind creditors under § 1141(a) and effectively preclude repetitive, collateral challenges to plan allocations of rights.
Attempts to repackage previously rejected theories (here, about tax lien ownership and breach of a settlement agreement) into new legal labels (conversion, unjust enrichment) will be dismissed as futile under Rule 12(b)(6), and leave to amend will be denied as futile under Rule 15(a)(2).
Arguments based on forum-selection clauses or other contract provisions must be raised early, clearly, and with supporting authority in the bankruptcy court, or they will be forfeited on appeal.

In the broader legal context, this decision reinforces the central goals of bankruptcy: finality, efficiency, and the consolidation of disputes concerning the estate. It stands as a cautionary case for creditors and insiders who seek to litigate “around” the bankruptcy process rather than within it, and it illustrates how repeated efforts to relitigate settled issues can be curtailed as vexatious and legally untenable once a Chapter 11 plan has been confirmed and allowed to become final.

Finality of Confirmed Chapter 11 Plans and Bankruptcy “Related-To” Jurisdiction: Commentary on Choudhri v. National Bank of Kuwait (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2025)