The court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction to consider a dispute between non-debtors that related to a chapter 11 plan confirmed more than five years prior to the dispute. However, the court concluded, based on the facts before it, that permissive abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) was appropriate. The court recommended to the district court that, in cases involving confirmed chapter 11 plans that are largely completed and resolution of the dispute will have little or no effect on the bankruptcy case, disputes between third parties should not be determined in the bankruptcy court and permissive abstention should be used to transfer such cases back to jurisdictions statutorily designated to handle them.