John R. BEHRMANN; Nancy Behrmann; Highbourne Foundation; Maurice Townsley; Theresa Townsley; Townsley Family Foundation, The; Dolores F. Anderson, a/k/a Dodie Anderson; Dodie Anderson Foundation, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. NATIONAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Incorporated; Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Defendants–Appellees.Id. at 42 (citations and internal quotations omitted); accord In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., 960 F.2d 285, 293 (2d Cir.1992) (upholding an injunction against creditors from suing a third party, given that the injunction played an important part in the debtor's reorganization); In re Railworks Corp., 345 B.R. 529, 536 (Bankr.D.Md.2006) (holding that a release provision enjoining the commencement of actions against nondebtors was enforceable even though “broad in nature”). Thus, Appellants' blanket assertion that equitable relief in the form of nondebtor releases is never permissible under the Bankruptcy Code is also without merit.

In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., 416 F.3d at 142. The Fourth Circuit further found the factors in Dow Corning and In re Railworks to be instructive, and commended these cases to this Court for consideration. Nat'l Heritage Found., Inc., 663 F.3d at 712 (referencing the factors laid out in Dow Corning, 280 F.3d at 658, and Hoge v. Moore (In re Railworks Corp.), 345 B.R. 529, 536 (Bankr.D.Md.2006)). In Dow Corning, the Sixth Circuit identified the following seven factors:

Id. (emphasis added). More specifically, the Fourth Circuit "commended" to the Bankruptcy Court the factors outlined in Class Five Nev. Claimants v. Dow Corning (Dow Corning), 280 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2002) and In re Railworks Corp., 345 B.R. 529, 536 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006) when considering whether to approve the nondebtor releases as part of the final plan of reorganization. Behrmann, 663 F.3d at 712 ("We find the Dow Corning and In re Railworks Corp. factors instructive and so commend them to the bankruptcy court when considering whether to approve nondebtor releases as part of a final plan of reorganization.").

A court has the discretion to abstain from a proceeding if the interests of justice or considerations of comity warrant abstention. In re Railworks Corp. 345 B.R. 529, 540 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006). "Although abstention is the exception rather than the rule, the decision to abstain is within the sound discretion of the court."

Application of this principle among the courts of the Fourth Circuit appears to have been largely limited to circumstances like those present in A.H. Robins, when an injunction is granted for the benefit of third parties as part of a Chapter 11 plan confirmation process. See, e.g., Hodge v. Moore ( In re Railworks Corp.), 345 B.R. 529, 536 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006) ("The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has determined that the bankruptcy court may release the liabilities of non-debtors in certain circumstances, including when the plan is overwhelmingly approved and where the injunction is essential to a workable reorganization, leaving open the question of when or if Section 524(e) may apply to limit third party injunctions."). Some courts have found that "[a]ctions which, regardless of their superficial rationalization, are intended and actually work to extort payment of a discharged debt, may violate the discharge under § 524. . . ."

Application of this principle among the courts of the Fourth Circuit appears to have been largely limited to circumstances like those present in A.H. Robins, when an injunction is granted for the benefit of third parties as part of a Chapter 11 plan confirmation process. See, e.g., Hoge v. Moore (In re Railworks Corp.), 345 B.R. 529, 536 (Bankr.D.Md.2006) ( “The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has determined that the bankruptcy court may release the liabilities of non-debtors in certain circumstances, including when the plan is overwhelmingly approved and where the injunction is essential to a workable reorganization, leaving open the question of when or if Section 524(e) may apply to limit third party injunctions.”). Some courts have found that “[a]ctions which, regardless of their superficial rationalization, are intended and actually work to extort payment of a discharged debt, may violate the discharge under § 524....” Jacobs v. Oklahoma (In re Jacobs), 149 B.R. 983, 991 (Bankr.N.D.Okla.1993) (citing In re Guinn, 102 B.R. 838, 843 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1989) (finding that a credit union's policy of “shun[ning] equally any member who causes it loss,” as applied to a bankrupt-debtor's dischargeable debts, may nevertheless violate the injunctive provisions of §§ 362(a)(6) and 524(a)); Olson v. McFarland Clinic, P.C. (In re Olson),

28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to abstain from a proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 if the interests of justice or if considerations of comity warrant abstention. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1); see also Hoge v. Moore (In re Railworks Corp.), 345 B.R. 529, 540 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006). "Although abstention is the exception rather than the rule, the decision to abstain is within the sound discretion of the court."

28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to abstain from a proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 if the interests of justice or if considerations of comity warrant abstention. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1); see also Hoge v. Moore (In re Railworks Corp.), 345 B.R. 529, 540 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006). "Although abstention is the exception rather than the rule, the decision to abstain is within the sound discretion of the court."

(1) the effect on the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate; (2) the extent to which issues of state law predominate; (3) the difficulty or unsettled nature of applicable state law; (4) comity; (5) the degree of relatedness or remoteness to the proceeding in the main bankruptcy case; (6) the existence of the right to a jury trial; and (7) prejudice to the involuntarily removed defendants.In re Railworks Corp., 345 B.R. 529, 540-41 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006) (citing In re Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc., 222 B.R. 254, 257 (D. Md. 1998)). The equities here weigh heavily in favor of remand.

Behrmann v. National Heritage Foundation , 663 F.3d 704, 712 (4th Cir. 2011). Releases of nondebtors proposed in Chapter 11 plans must meet the standards set forth in Class Five Nev. Claimants v. Dow Corning Corp. (In re Dow Corning) , 280 F.3d 648, 658 (6th Cir. 2002), and In re Railworks Corp. , 345 B.R. 529, 536 (Bankr. D. Md. 2006). National Heritage Founda tion , 663 F.3d at 712 (finding the Dow Corning and Railworks factors instructive and commending them to bankruptcy courts for consideration of nondebtor releases).