ÿWPCÝ" í ›Å¾a¢xr¨µùDÅ°'ÚÈDØÄŸxÄT_[4J3^¬†½.‘T:±tÓ†°tÕŸÉb³>´lHš›µË|ÑA˜¦‚;¿íøÙÒ$Â7TŽÑÒR©äðN$·§ÍJ3`Gô·ë0D¸÷Øìd—Íl4š™¬ XŽÞŽŒŽkp­/æ@^Œ$9%¬’±ouìä91¥¦ëpz¶ï‹öf_h©íHCʼnl_²EœÑ#ØOCÄÏSÚc6±Ó’³v蟈[¦Ñ¬Ü2xƒx¶/Ûe`SN°–ÎŽ‹SÇyÞ¡CYLXÐÒÐf°ïîmüo5ån1ýC¯ÆB”•MCm¸Ã@ã|4å S)dæýË+à!2Åg…Wüγ“ËêY‚ƒ1—ob›±ÆÏÄ• Y‘cccccccc Bô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!ô!U F"UFW"W"W"U@"˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ04X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡(d:2Š;$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3),3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó €Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBRMC€and€L„BRMC€are€not€distinct€legal€entities.€€Rather,€L„Ð ° ÐBRMC€is€the€continuation€of€BRMC€as€reorganized.€€We€distinguishÐ †Ö Ðbetween€them€solely€for€purposes€of€clarity.«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ ØÝ ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€emphasis€on€the€testator's€intent€is€buttressed€by€ourÐ ° Ðknowledge€that,€under€Massachusetts€law,€a€testator€could€expresslyÐ †Ö Ðinclude€a€provision€in€her€will€precluding€a€bankrupt€charity€fromÐ \¬ Ðtaking€thereunder.€€òòSeeóó€òòSpringfield€Safe€Deposit€&€Trust€Co.óó€v.Ð 2‚ ÐòòFrieleóó,€23€N.E.2d€138,€141€(Mass.€1939)€(holding€that€a€testator€isÐ X Ðgenerally€entitled€to€place€such€conditions€and€limitations€on€aÐ Þ. Ðbequest€as€she€sees€fit).S’Î2s 6xª26Xy File3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀøÀTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€there€is€authority€for€the€proposition€that€theÐ ° Ðprospect€of€increasing€the€funds€available€to€creditors,€withoutÐ †Ö Ðmore,€is€insufficient€to€establish€related€to€jurisdiction€in€aÐ \¬ Ðpost„confirmation€case,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCraig's€Storesóó,€266€F.3d€at€391,Ð 2‚ Ðthose€cases€concern€operating€corporations,€not€liquidatingÐ X Ðcorporations.€€They€are,€therefore,€inapposite.- ù-  ‘Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course,€the€"date€of€vesting"€rule€that€we€endorse€todayÐ ° Ðis€a€default€rule.€€Within€wide€limits,€a€testator€retains€theÐ †Ö Ðability€to€specify€the€terms€on€which€a€beneficiary€is€eligible€toÐ \¬ Ðreceive€a€€bequest€and,€thus,€to€modify€the€"date€of€vesting"€ruleÐ 2‚ Ðas€he€or€she€sees€fit.€€òòSeeóó€òòSpringfield€Safe€Deposit€&€Trust€Co.óó€v.Ð X ÐòòFrieleóó,€23€N.E.2d€138,€141€(Mass.€1939). Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔL„BRMC€asserts€rights€both€as€a€legatee€under€Ms.€Krauss'sÐ ° Ðwill€and€as€a€beneficiary€under€the€inter€vivos€trusts€establishedÐ †Ö Ðon€her€behalf.€€Depending€on€which€instrument€is€underÐ \¬ Ðconsideration,€Ms.€Krauss€technically€may€be€a€testator€or€aÐ 2‚ Ðsettlor€and€her€largesse€technically€may€be€described€either€as€aÐ X Ðbequest€or€as€a€distribution.€€Since€the€parties'€rights€are€theÐ Þ. Ðsame€in€either€event,€we€refer€throughout€to€Ms.€Krauss€as€theÐ ´  Ðtestator€and€to€the€gift€as€a€bequest. ¼Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Plan€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€confirmation€of€the€Plan€shall€act€to€permanentlyÐ \¬ Ðenjoin€.€.€.€all€persons€.€.€.€(a)€from€commencing€orÐ 2‚ Ðcontinuing€in€any€manner€any€action€or€other€proceedingÐ X Ðof€any€kind€with€respect€to€any€such€claim€or€interestÐ Þ. Ðagainst€the€Debtor€and/or€reorganized€BRMC;€.€.€.€(c)Ð ´  Ðfrom€creating,€perfecting€or€enforcing€any€encumbrance€ofÐ Š Ú Ðany€kind€against€reorganized€BRMC,€or€against€theÐ ` ° Ðproperty€of€the€reorganized€BRMC€with€respect€to€any€suchÐ 6 †  Ðclaim€or€interest;€.€.€.€.€(excess€capitalizationÐ  \  Ðomitted). ºÝ ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course,€a€testator€might€leave€a€bequest€for€the€specificÐ ° Ðpurpose€of€enabling€a€charitable€organization,€whether€or€notÐ †Ö Ðsolvent,€to€pay€its€debts.€€That€sort€of€bequest€is€beyond€theÐ \¬ Ðscope€of€this€opinion. Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHere,€the€authorities€are€divided€and€are€thus€of€littleÐ ° Ðhelp. ‡Ý ƒŠ;$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€3-”3X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€case€of€charities,€a€named€beneficiary€may€becomeÐ ° Ðunable€to€carry€out€the€charitable€purpose€of€the€bequest€after€theÐ †Ö Ðdeath€of€the€testator€but€before€it€is€eligible€to€receive€theÐ \¬ Ðbequest€under€the€will.€€In€that€scenario,€the€mere€fact€that€theÐ 2‚ Ðbequest€vested€might€not€be€enough€to€entitle€the€beneficiary€toÐ X Ðpayment.€€òòCf.óó€òòStrattonóó,€156€N.E.€at€887„88€(discussing€theÐ Þ. Ðeligibility€of€a€charitable€legatee€to€take€under€a€will€when€theÐ ´  Ðasserted€disability€accrued€after€the€death€of€the€testator,€butÐ Š Ú Ðduring€an€intervening€life€estate).€€Since€the€case€at€bar€involvesÐ ` ° Ðan€outright€bequest,€with€no€intervening€life€estate€or€otherÐ 6 †  Ðbuilt„in€reason€for€a€delay€in€payment,€we€need€not€decide€how€theÐ  \   Ðrule€would€operate€in€such€a€configuration. dÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular()æ Z(Times New Roman Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡4°ôœ°X4XÔÔ‡7°ì°°4°ôœÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†7X=ŽX°7°ìÅ#ÔÔ‡7„][„X7X=ŽÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†7X=ŽX„7„][Y#ÔÔ#†4X-”XX7X=Žä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌÌNo.€04„2241Ð K › ÐÌà@Ø Ø ìàIN€RE€BOSTON€REGIONAL€MEDICAL€CENTER,€INC.,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@HH'ìàDebtor.ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ OŸ  ÐÌà@@ @ ìàBOSTON€REGIONAL€MEDICAL€CENTER,€INC.,ˆÐ ûK  ÐÌà@<< ìàPlaintiff,€Appellee,‚‚‚‚‚‚‚ˆÐ §÷ ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ S£ ÐÌà@| | ìàHANSON€S.€REYNOLDS,€TRUSTEE,€ET€AL.,ˆÐ ÿO ÐÌà@ÄÄìàDefendants,€Appellees.ˆÐ «û ÐÌà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ W§ ÐÌà@ìì ìàFIRST€LUTHERAN€CHURCH€AND€THE€FIRST€CHURCH€OF€CHRIST,€SCIENTIST,ˆÐ S ÐÌà@LLìàIntervenors,€Appellants.ˆÐ ¯ÿ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Z` AßÐ [« ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ @ ! ÐÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MASSACHUSETTSˆÐ ì!<# ÐÌà@$ $ ìà[Hon.€Richard€G.€Stearns,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ ˜#è% ÐÌà@` ` ìà[Hon.€Carol€J.€Kenner,€òòU.S.€Bankruptcy€Judgeóó]ˆÐ D%” ' ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<ï&` AßÐ ð&@") ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ Õ'%#+ ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð )Ñ$- ÐTorruella€and€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð W*§%. ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<,` AßÐ ,S'0 ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòTheodore€E.€Dinsmooróó,€with€whom€òòBurns€&€Levinson€LLPóó€was€onÐ è,8(2 Ðbrief,€for€appellant€First€Church€of€Christ,€Scientist.Ð ¾-)3?L Ðà  àòòMichael€C.€Gilleranóó€and€òòPepe€&€Hazard,€LLPóó€on€brief€forÐ ° Ðappellant€First€Lutheran€Church.Ð †Ö Ðà  àòòCharles€R.€Bennett,€Jr.óó,€with€whom€òòDavid€C.€Kravitzóó,Ð \¬ ÐòòChristopher€M.€Morrisonóó,€and€òòHanify€&€King,€P.C.óó€were€on€brief,€forÐ 2‚ Ðdebtor„appellee.Ð X Ðà  àòòRobert€B.€Fosteróó€and€òòRackemann,€Sawyer€&€Brewster,€P.C.óó€onÐ Þ. Ðbrief€for€trustee„appellee.Ð ´  ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 6 † 6 † ‹‹ÐÓ ÓÐ SIš ê  €Îâ@38516„„‰€Îâ@‰‹‹SÐÌJune€14,€2005Ð p À  ÐÐ RHCF– " €Îâ@38516 €Îâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(š ê  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÓ  ÓÐ  "r  ÐÑ  ÑÑ8€4-”4XXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÓÓÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€appeal€presents€a€mare's€nestÐ ° Ðof€exotic€legal€problems.€€At€the€outset,€it€requires€us€to€resolveÐ xÈ Ða€novel€question€of€bankruptcy€jurisdiction.€€After€deciding€thatÐ $t Ðquestion,€we€must€then€determine€whether,€under€Massachusetts€law,Ð Ð  Ða€nonprofit€organization€that€has€ceased€operations€may€nonethelessÐ | Ì Ðreceive€a€charitable€bequest.€€Because€the€charitable€organizationÐ ( x  Ðwas€still€functioning€as€such€at€the€time€its€entitlement€to€theÐ Ô$  Ðbequest€vested,€we€conclude€that€the€bequest€may€be€paid.Ð €Ð  Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ,|  Ðà ` àElizabeth€Krauss€executed€her€last€will€and€testament€inÐ ôD Ð1975.€€That€instrument€bequeathed€the€residue€of€her€estate€inÐ  ð Ðequal€shares€to€the€New€England€Sanitarium€and€Hospital€ofÐ Lœ ÐStoneham,€Massachusetts€(New€England€Sanitarium),€First€LutheranÐ øH ÐChurch€of€Boston€(First€Lutheran),€and€First€Church€of€Christ,Ð ¤ô ÐScientist€(the€Mother€Church).€€It€specified€that€the€bequest€toÐ P  Ðthe€New€England€Sanitarium€was€"to€be€used€to€provide€a€bed€forÐ üL Ðindigent€patients."Ð ¨ø  Ðà ` àIn€1988,€a€state€probate€court€adjudged€Ms.€KraussÐ T!¤" Ðincompetent€and€placed€her€under€guardianship.€€Eight€years€later,Ð #P$ Ðthe€court€appointed€successor€guardians€in€the€persons€of€GaryÐ ¬$ü& ÐDouglas€Rose€(Ms.€Krauss's€grand„nephew)€and€Hanson€S.€Reynolds€(anÐ X&¨!( Ðattorney).€€The€new€guardians€found€Ms.€Krauss's€financial€affairsÐ (T#* Ðin€disarray.€€They€concluded€that€it€would€be€best€to€sell€herÐ °)%, Ðrealty,€thus€making€her€estate€more€liquid€and€raising€funds€thatÐ \+¬&. Ðcould€be€used€to€settle€her€debts€and€defray€the€costs€of€herÐ ° Ðnursing€care.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àTo€minimize€potential€tax€liabilities,€the€guardiansÐ X Ðproposed€to€transfer€the€real€estate€to€certain€inter€vivosÐ ´  Ðcharitable€trusts€as€a€precursor€to€any€sale.€€These€transfersÐ ` ° Ðwould€render€the€testamentary€bequests€nugatory€but,€to€effectuateÐ  \  ÐMs.€Krauss's€original€intent,€the€guardians€drew€the€trustÐ ¸  Ðindentures€to€provide€that,€upon€Ms.€Krauss's€death,€the€remainingÐ d´  Ðcorpus€would€be€divided€in€equal€portions€among€the€three€residuaryÐ `  Ðbeneficiaries€named€in€the€will.€€By€then,€the€New€EnglandÐ ¼  ÐSanitarium€had€changed€its€name€to€Boston€Regional€Medical€CenterÐ h¸ Ð(BRMC),€and€the€indentures€of€trust€named€BRMC,€First€Lutheran,€andÐ d Ðthe€Mother€Church€as€residuary€beneficiaries.€€This€stipulation€didÐ À Ðnot€include€the€preexisting€limitation€on€the€gift€to€BRMC€(thatÐ l¼ Ðthe€funds€"be€used€to€provide€a€bed€for€indigent€patients").€Ð h ÐAccording€to€Reynolds,€the€guardians€deliberately€eliminated€theÐ Ä Ðrestriction€because€they€believed€that€it€was€ambiguous€and,€asÐ pÀ  Ðsuch,€might€cause€a€failure€of€the€bequest.Ð !l" Ðà ` àOn€October€10,€1997,€the€probate€court€confirmed€theÐ È"$ Ðguardians'€plan€for€transferring€and€then€selling€Ms.€Krauss'sÐ t$Ä& Ðassets.€€The€real€estate€was€transferred€and€sold,€and€the€trustsÐ  &p!( Ðwere€funded.€€The€guardians€were€named€as€co„trustees.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àOn€March€1,€1998,€Ms.€Krauss€died€at€the€age€of€105.€€TheÐ x)È$, Ðtrustees€neither€initiated€any€contact€with€the€named€beneficiariesÐ $+t&. Ðat€that€time€nor€made€any€immediate€distribution€of€the€corpus.€Ð ° ÐThe€record€does€not€indicate€that€BRMC€even€knew€of€Ms.€Krauss'sÐ \¬ Ðdeath,€let€alone€of€the€windfall€that€her€demise€betokened.Ð X Ðà ` àApproximately€eleven€months€later,€BRMC€closed€its€doors,Ð ´  Ðhalted€hospital€operations,€and€filed€for€bankruptcy€protectionÐ ` ° Ðunder€Chapter€11€of€the€Bankruptcy€Code.€€At€the€time,€it€was€stillÐ  \  Ðnot€aware€that€it€was€a€beneficiary€of€the€Krauss€trusts.€€Thus,Ð ¸  ÐBRMC€did€not€list€any€expected€distribution€from€the€trusts€amongÐ d´  Ðthe€assets€of€the€bankruptcy€estate.Ð `  Ðà ` àOn€January€18,€2000,€the€bankruptcy€court€confirmedÐ ¼  ÐBRMC's€plan€of€reorganization€(the€Plan).€€The€Plan€was€strictly€aÐ h¸ Ðliquidating€plan.€€Under€it,€all€of€BRMC's€assets€were€vested€in€aÐ d Ðreorganized€BRMC,€which€we€shall€call€liquidating€BRMC€or€L„BRMC.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÀ ÐL„BRMC's€sole€purpose€is€to€liquidate€the€marshaled€assets€andÐ l¼ Ðdistribute€the€net€proceeds€to€BRMC's€creditors€in€accordance€withÐ h Ðthe€provisions€of€the€Plan.Ð Ä Ðà ` àIn€May€of€2000,€the€nature€and€extent€of€Ms.€Krauss'sÐ pÀ  Ðphilanthropy€became€known€to€her€intended€beneficiaries.€€CitingÐ !l" ÐBRMC's€bankruptcy,€First€Lutheran€and€the€Mother€Church€filed€aÐ È"$ Ðcomplaint€against€the€trustees€and€L„BRMC€in€the€probate€courtÐ t$Ä& Ðseeking€to€prohibit€any€distribution€from€the€trust€corpus€to€theÐ  &p!( Ðbankrupt€hospital.€€L„BRMC€objected€on€several€grounds,€assertingÐ Ì'#* Ðin€the€first€instance€that€the€injunctive€provisions€of€the€PlanÐ ° Ðbarred€the€maintenance€of€the€suit.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€churches€agreed€to€dropÐ \¬ ÐL„BRMC€from€the€state€court€proceeding€and€filed€a€motion€in€theÐ X Ðbankruptcy€court€for€relief€from€the€injunction€so€that€the€probateÐ ´  Ðcourt€proceeding€could€go€forward.€€The€bankruptcy€court€deniedÐ ` ° Ðthat€motion€on€July€12,€2000.Ð  \  Ðà ` àShortly€thereafter,€L„BRMC€initiated€an€adversaryÐ ¸  Ðproceeding€in€the€bankruptcy€court€to€compel€the€trustees€to€turnÐ d´  Ðover€the€hospital's€share€of€the€trust€assets.€€The€churchesÐ `  Ðintervened€and€counterclaimed€for€reformation€of€the€indentures€ofÐ ¼  Ðtrust,€seeking€to€reimpose€the€"bed"€limitation€that€had€beenÐ h¸ Ðcontained€in€Ms.€Krauss's€will.€€First€Lutheran€simultaneouslyÐ d Ðmoved€to€dismiss€the€turnover€complaint€and€the€Mother€Church€filedÐ À Ða€motion€entreating€the€bankruptcy€court€to€abstain.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðbankruptcy€court€denied€both€of€these€motions.ò òó ó€€òòIn€re€Boston€Reg'lÐ h ÐMed.€Ctr.óó,€265€B.R.€645,€651„52€(Bankr.€D.€Mass.€2001)€(òòBRMC€Ióó).€Ð Ä ÐAlthough€it€agreed€that€the€adversary€proceeding€was€notÐ pÀ  Ðappropriately€characterized€as€a€turnover€action€(and,€thus,€wasÐ ° Ðnot€a€core€proceeding),€the€court€nevertheless€found€"related€to"Ð \¬ Ðjurisdiction€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1334(b)€(2000),€òòid.óó€at€651,ò òó ó€andÐ X Ðdetermined€that€abstention€would€be€inappropriate,òòóó€òòid.óó€at€652.Ð ´  Ðà ` àOn€February€7,€2003,€the€bankruptcy€court€held€a€hearingÐ ` ° Ðon€the€merits.€€It€thereafter€concluded€that€because€Ms.€KraussÐ  \  Ðdied€before€BRMC€ceased€to€function€as€a€hospital€and€because€BRMCÐ ¸  Ðincurred€its€debts€in€furtherance€of€its€charitable€mission,€thereÐ d´  Ðwas€no€obstacle€to€paying€out€a€one„third€share€of€the€trustÐ `  Ðresidue.€€òòIn€re€Boston€Reg'l€Med.€Ctr.óó,€298€B.R.€1,€27„30€(Bankr.Ð ¼  ÐD.€Mass.€2003)€(òòBRMC€IIóó).ò òó ó€€The€court€further€determined€that€theÐ h¸ Ðchurches'€counterclaim€was€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata.€Ð d ÐòòId.óó€at€18„23.€€Based€on€these€findings€and€conclusions,€theÐ À Ðbankruptcy€court€recommended€that€the€district€court€enter€an€orderÐ l¼ Ðdirecting€the€trustees€to€pay€the€disputed€funds€to€L„BRMC.Ð h Ðà ` àThe€churches€filed€objections€to€the€bankruptcy€court'sÐ Ä Ðrecommended€decision.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€157(c)(1)€(2000);€Fed.€R.Ð pÀ  ÐBankr.€P.€9033(b).ò òó ó€€They€also€moved€in€the€district€court€for€(i)Ð !l" Ðdismissal€for€want€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction,€(ii)€abstention,Ð È"$ Ðor€(iii)€certification€of€the€state€law€questions€to€theÐ t$Ä& ÐMassachusetts€Supreme€Judicial€Court€(SJC).€€The€district€courtÐ  &p!( Ðdenied€the€motions,€conducted€a€de€novo€review€of€the€record,Ð Ì'#* Ðadopted€the€bankruptcy€court's€proposed€findings€and€conclusionsÐ x)È$, Ðwith€minor€modifications,€and€entered€judgment€accordingly.€€òòIn€reÐ $+t&. ÐBoston€Reg'l€Med.€Ctr.óó,€No.€Civ.€A.€03„12215,€2004€WL€1778881,€atÐ ° Ð*6€(D.€Mass.€Aug.€9,€2004)€(òòBRMC€IIIóó).€ò òó ó€The€churches€now€appeal.Ð \¬ Ðò òII.€€JURISDICTIONó óÐ X Ðà ` àWe€start€with€the€jurisdictional€question.€€The€churchesÐ Ð  Ðstrive€to€persuade€us€that€there€is€no€"related€to"€jurisdictionÐ | Ì Ðbecause€this€litigation€arose€after€the€bankruptcy€court€confirmedÐ ( x  Ðthe€Plan.€€We€are€not€convinced.Ð Ô$  Ðà ` àBankruptcy€jurisdiction€is€governed€principally€byÐ €Ð  Ðstatute.€€The€general€grant€of€bankruptcy€jurisdiction€is€containedÐ ,|  Ðin€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1334.€€That€provision€vests€original€jurisdiction€inÐ Ø( Ðthe€district€courts€over€"all€civil€proceedings€arising€under€titleÐ „Ô Ð11,€or€arising€in€or€related€to€cases€under€title€11."€€òòId.óó€ððÐ 0€ Ð1334(b).€€In€what€is€a€typical€arrangement,€the€District€ofÐ Ü, ÐMassachusetts,€by€standing€order,€has€delegated€to€the€bankruptcyÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€all€cases€in€which€jurisdiction€is€premised€on€section€1334,Ð 4„ Ðòòseeóó€D.€Mass.€R.€201,€subject€to€review€by€the€district€court€(or,Ð à0 Ðalternatively,€by€the€bankruptcy€appellate€panel)€in€accordanceÐ ŒÜ  Ðwith€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€157,€158.Ð 8!ˆ" Ðà ` àThe€statutory€grant€of€"related€to"€jurisdiction€is€quiteÐ ä"4$ Ðbroad.€€Congress€deliberately€allowed€the€cession€of€wide„rangingÐ $à& Ðjurisdiction€to€the€bankruptcy€courts€to€enable€them€to€dealÐ <&Œ!( Ðefficiently€and€effectively€with€the€entire€universe€of€mattersÐ è'8#* Ðconnected€with€bankruptcy€estates.€€òòSeeóó€òòPacor,€Inc.óó€v.€òòHigginsóó,€743Ð ”)ä$, ÐF.2d€984,€994€(3d€Cir.€1984).€€Thus,€bankruptcy€courts€ordinarilyÐ @+&. Ðmay€exercise€related€to€jurisdiction€as€long€as€the€outcome€of€theÐ ° Ðlitigation€"potentially€[could]€have€some€effect€on€the€bankruptcyÐ \¬ Ðestate,€such€as€altering€debtor's€rights,€liabilities,€options,€orÐ X Ðfreedom€of€action,€or€otherwise€have€an€impact€upon€the€handlingÐ ´  Ðand€administration€of€the€bankrupt€estate."€€òòIn€re€G.S.F.€Corp.óó,Ð ` ° Ð938€F.2d€1467,€1475€(1st€Cir.€1991)€(quoting€òòIn€re€Smithóó,€866€F.2dÐ  \  Ð576,€580€(3d€Cir.€1989)).Ð ¸  Ðà ` àIn€this€instance,€the€bankruptcy€court€found€theÐ d´  Ðadversary€proceeding€to€be€"related€to€[a]€case[]€under€title€11,"Ð `  Ðas€that€phrase€is€used€in€section€1334(b).€€At€first€blush,€thisÐ ¼  Ðseems€to€be€a€garden„variety€application€of€the€general€rule.€Ð h¸ ÐWhether€or€not€BRMC€prevails€will€directly€affect€the€amount€of€theÐ d Ðliquidating€dividend€paid€to€creditors.€€There€is,€therefore,€aÐ À Ðfairly€close€connection€between€the€adversary€proceeding€and€theÐ l¼ Ðadministration€of€the€bankruptcy€estate.€€That€seemingly€wouldÐ h Ðsuffice€to€bring€this€case€within€the€bankruptcy€court's€related€toÐ Ä Ðjurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Toledoóó,€170€F.3d€1340,€1345„46€(11th€Cir.Ð pÀ  Ð1999)€(finding€related€to€jurisdiction€when€the€outcome€of€the€suitÐ !l" Ðwould€affect€the€amount€of€funds€available€to€creditors).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àThe€churches€urge€us€not€to€apply€the€general€rule€here.€Ð t$Ä& ÐIn€their€view,€the€distinguishing€feature€is€that€L„BRMC€commencedÐ  &p!( Ðthis€proceeding€after€the€bankruptcy€court€confirmed€the€Plan.€Ð Ì'#* ÐThis€argument€presupposes€that€the€scope€of€the€bankruptcy€court'sÐ x)È$, Ðrelated€to€jurisdiction€narrows€dramatically€once€a€plan€ofÐ $+t&. Ðreorganization€has€been€confirmed€and€that,€thereafter,€related€toÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€only€includes€those€matters€that€have€a€particularlyÐ \¬ Ðclose€nexus€to€the€confirmed€plan€ð"ð€a€nexus€that€the€churchesÐ X Ðassert€is€absent€in€this€case.Ð ´  Ðà ` àOn€its€face,€section€1334€does€not€distinguish€betweenÐ ` ° Ðpre„confirmation€and€post„confirmation€jurisdiction.€€Nonetheless,Ð  \  Ðcourts€sometimes€have€found€a€need€to€curtail€the€reach€of€relatedÐ ¸  Ðto€jurisdiction€in€the€post„confirmation€context€so€that€bankruptcyÐ d´  Ðcourt€jurisdiction€does€not€continue€indefinitely.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòInÐ `  Ðre€Pegasus€Gold€Corp.óó,€394€F.3d€1189,€1193„94€(9th€Cir.€2005)Ð ¼  Ð(suggesting€that€post„confirmation€bankruptcy€court€jurisdiction€isÐ h¸ Ðnecessarily€more€limited€than€pre„confirmation€jurisdiction);òòóó€òòIn€reÐ d ÐResorts€Int'l,€Inc.óó,€372€F.3d€154,€164„69€(3d€Cir.€2004)€(similar).Ð À Ðà ` àThe€rationale€behind€this€line€of€decisions€starts€withÐ l¼ Ðthe€premise€that€a€reorganized€debtor€is€emancipated€by€theÐ h Ðconfirmation€of€a€reorganization€plan.€€It€emerges€from€bankruptcyÐ Ä Ðand€enters€the€marketplace€in€its€reincarnated€form.€€From€thatÐ pÀ  Ðpoint€forward,€it€is€just€like€any€other€corporation;€"it€mustÐ !l" Ðprotect€its€interests€in€the€way€provided€by€the€applicable€non„Ð È"$ Ðbankruptcy€law,"€without€any€special€swaddling.€€òòPettibone€Corp.óó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòEasleyóó,€935€F.2d€120,€122„23€(7th€Cir.€1991).€€Given€the€broadÐ  &p!( Ðsweep€of€related€to€jurisdiction,€applying€the€general€rule€withoutÐ Ì'#* Ðqualification€after€the€confirmation€of€a€reorganization€planÐ x)È$, Ðeasily€could€result€in€the€bankruptcy€court€retaining€jurisdictionÐ $+t&. Ðof€all€cases€affecting€the€reorganized€debtor€for€many€yearsÐ ° Ðthereafter.€€This€prospect€not€only€would€work€an€unwarrantedÐ \¬ Ðexpansion€of€federal€court€jurisdiction€but€also€would€unfairlyÐ X Ðadvantage€reorganized€debtors€by€allowing€such€firms€to€funnelÐ ´  Ðvirtually€all€litigation€affecting€them€into€a€single€federalÐ ` ° Ðforum.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€122.Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€solution,€however,€is€not€to€discard€the€baby€withÐ ¸  Ðthe€bath€water.€€While€courts€have€interpreted€the€term€"relatedÐ d´  Ðto"€more€grudgingly€in€some€post„confirmation€settings,€context€isÐ `  Ðimportant.€€Those€narrowing€interpretations€have€been€invoked€onlyÐ ¼  Ðwith€respect€to€actions€involving€reorganized€debtors€that€haveÐ h¸ Ðreentered€the€marketplace.€€No€case€has€suggested€that€courtsÐ d Ðshould€abandon€the€general€rule€in€all€post„confirmation€cases.Ð À Ðà ` àHere,€the€Plan€calls€for€the€liquidation€of€BRMC,€not€itsÐ l¼ Ðcontinuation€as€a€going€concern.€€The€most€salient€differenceÐ h Ðbetween€the€usual€Chapter€11€reorganization€and€a€liquidating€planÐ Ä Ðis€that,€in€the€latter€instance,€the€reorganized€debtor's€soleÐ pÀ  Ðpurpose€is€to€wind€up€its€affairs,€convert€its€assets€to€cash,€andÐ !l" Ðpay€creditors€a€pro€rata€dividend.€€By€definition,€it€has€noÐ È"$ Ðauthority€to€reenter€the€marketplace.€€That€fact€undercuts€theÐ t$Ä& Ðprimary€purposes€for€parsimoniously€policing€the€perimeter€of€post„Ð  &p!( Ðconfirmation€jurisdiction:€€the€specter€of€endless€bankruptcyÐ Ì'#* Ðjurisdiction€and€a€kindred€concern€about€unfairly€advantagingÐ x)È$, Ðreorganized€debtors.€€Accordingly,€there€is€much€less€reason€toÐ $+t&. Ðdepart€from€the€general€rule€for€related€to€jurisdiction€where€aÐ ° Ðclaim€involves€a€liquidating€plan€of€reorganization.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThere€is€another,€perhaps€more€important,€reason€forÐ X Ðdistinguishing€between€liquidating€plans€and€true€reorganizationÐ ´  Ðplans.€€Courts€that€have€limited€the€scope€of€post„confirmationÐ ` ° Ðjurisdiction€have€based€their€holdings€on€the€conclusion€that,€onceÐ  \  Ðconfirmation€has€occurred,€fewer€proceedings€are€actually€relatedÐ ¸  Ðto€the€underlying€bankruptcy€case.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòResorts€Int'lóó,€372Ð d´  ÐF.3d€at€165„67;€òòIn€re€Craig's€Stores€of€Tex.,€Inc.óó,€266€F.3d€388,Ð `  Ð390€(5th€Cir.€2001).€€That€makes€good€sense:€€as€the€corporationÐ ¼  Ðmoves€on,€the€connection€attenuates.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àThis€justification€is€absent€in€the€case€of€a€liquidatingÐ d Ðplan.€€Typically,€a€reorganized€debtor€is€attempting€to€make€a€goÐ À Ðof€its€business.€€Thus,€its€actions€(including€any€involvement€inÐ l¼ Ðlitigation)€redound€primarily€to€that€end€and€only€affect€theÐ h Ðunderlying€bankruptcy€proceeding€in€a€tangential€or€derivative€way.€Ð Ä ÐòòSeeóó€òòPettiboneóó,€935€F.2d€at€122„23.€€By€contrast,€a€liquidatingÐ pÀ  Ðdebtor€exists€for€the€singular€purpose€of€executing€an€order€of€theÐ !l" Ðbankruptcy€court.€€Any€litigation€involving€such€a€debtor€thusÐ È"$ Ðrelates€much€more€directly€to€a€proceeding€under€title€11.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àThis€case€is€a€paradigmatic€example:€€L„BRMC's€success€orÐ  &p!( Ðlack€of€success€in€securing€a€share€of€the€trust€corpus€willÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âdirectly€impact€the€amount€of€the€liquidating€dividend€eventuallyÐ x)È$, Ðpaid€to€BRMC's€creditors.€€That€is€a€matter€intimately€connectedÐ ° Ðwith€the€efficacy€of€the€bankruptcy€proceeding.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àWe€add,€moreover,€that€in€the€case€of€a€liquidating€planÐ X Ðof€reorganization,€there€exists€a€substantial€policy€interest€inÐ ´  Ðfavor€of€adhering€to€the€general€rule€governing€related€toÐ ` ° Ðjurisdiction:€€the€strong€federal€policy€in€favor€of€theÐ  \  Ðexpeditious€liquidation€of€debtor€corporations€and€the€promptÐ ¸  Ðdistribution€of€available€assets€to€creditors.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€HolidayÐ d´  ÐMart,€Inc.óó,€715€F.2d€430,€435€(9th€Cir.€1983);€òòIn€re€CartridgeÐ `  ÐTelevision,€Inc.óó,€535€F.2d€1388,€1390€(2d€Cir.€1976).€€This€policyÐ ¼  Ðis€furthered€by€concentrating€in€a€single€forum€any€litigation€thatÐ h¸ Ðwill€impede€or€advance€that€goal.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€existence€vel€non€of€related€to€jurisdiction€must€beÐ À Ðdetermined€case„by„case.€€òòSeeóó€òòPegasus€Goldóó,€394€F.3d€at€1194Ð l¼ Ð(recognizing€that€post„confirmation€related€to€jurisdiction€shouldÐ h Ðbe€determined€with€"a€certain€flexibility").€€The€language€of€theÐ Ä Ðjurisdictional€statute,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1334,€is€protean,€and€what€isÐ pÀ  Ð"related€to"€a€proceeding€under€title€11€in€one€context€may€beÐ !l" Ðunrelated€in€another.€€With€this€in€mind,€we€feel€confident€thatÐ È"$ Ðthere€will€be€situations€in€which€the€fact€that€particularÐ t$Ä& Ðlitigation€arises€after€confirmation€of€a€reorganization€plan€willÐ ° Ðdefeat€an€attempted€exercise€of€bankruptcy€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó,Ð \¬ Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòResorts€Int'lóó,€372€F.3d€at€166„68.€€We€are€equally€confident,Ð X Ðhowever,€that€there€are€other€situations€in€which€the€fact€thatÐ ´  Ðparticular€litigation€arises€after€confirmation€of€a€reorganizationÐ ` ° Ðplan€will€not€defeat€an€attempted€exercise€of€bankruptcyÐ  \  Ðjurisdiction.Ð ¸  Ðà ` à€Insofar€as€we€can€tell,€no€court€has€yet€addressed€theÐ d´  Ðscope€of€post„confirmation€related€to€jurisdiction€in€a€caseÐ `  Ðinvolving€a€liquidating€plan€of€reorganization.€€For€the€reasonsÐ ¼  Ðalluded€to€above,€we€hold€that€when€a€debtor€(or€a€trustee€actingÐ h¸ Ðto€the€debtor's€behoof)€commences€litigation€designed€to€marshalÐ d Ðthe€debtor's€assets€for€the€benefit€of€its€creditors€pursuant€to€aÐ À Ðliquidating€plan€of€reorganization,€the€compass€of€related€toÐ l¼ Ðjurisdiction€persists€undiminished€after€plan€confirmation.€€BasedÐ h Ðon€this€holding,€we€affirm€the€bankruptcy€court's€exercise€ofÐ Ä Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction.Ð pÀ  Ðò òIII.€€THE€MERITSÐ !l" Ðó óà ` àWe€turn€now€to€the€merits.€€In€this€court,€the€churchesÐ ä"4$ Ðhave€abandoned€their€counterclaim€for€reformation€of€the€trustÐ $à& Ðindentures.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.Ð <&Œ!( Ð1990)€(explaining€that€legal€points€alluded€to€in€a€perfunctoryÐ è'8#* Ðmanner,€but€unaccompanied€by€developed€argumentation,€are€deemedÐ ”)ä$, Ðabandoned).€€Instead,€they€focus€on€their€thesis€that€L„BRMC€isÐ @+&. Ðineligible€to€receive€a€share€of€the€trust€residue.€€This€thesisÐ ° Ðruns€as€follows.€€Under€Massachusetts€law,€an€organization€is€onlyÐ \¬ Ðeligible€to€receive€a€charitable€bequest€if€it€is€capable€of€usingÐ X Ðthe€bequest€for€the€purpose€for€which€it€was€intended׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ð"ð€and€anÐ ´  Ðentity€that€exists€solely€for€the€benefit€of€creditors€(like€L„Ð ` ° ÐBRMC)€is€incapable€of€using€such€a€bequest€(like€Ms.€Krauss's)€forÐ  \  Ðthe€intended€purpose€("provid[ing]€a€bed€for€indigent€patients").Ð ¸  Ðà ` àLike€the€district€court,€we€review€de€novo€the€bankruptcyÐ d´  Ðcourt's€conclusions€of€law.€€òòIn€re€Mailman€Steam€Carpet€CleaningÐ `  ÐCorp.óó,€212€F.3d€632,€636€(1st€Cir.€2000).€€We€review€its€findingsÐ ¼  Ðof€fact,€as€modified€by€the€district€court,€for€clear€error.€€òòId.óó€Ð h¸ ÐInasmuch€as€the€parties€and€the€courts€below€have€addressed€thisÐ d Ðcase€on€the€plausible€assumption€that€Massachusetts€law€furnishesÐ À Ðthe€substantive€rules€of€decision,€we€follow€suit.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€reÐ l¼ ÐNewport€Plaza€Assocs.óó,€985€F.2d€640,€643„44€(1st€Cir.€1993);€òòseeóóÐ h Ðòòalsoóó€òòUngaróó€v.€òòPLOóó,€402€F.3d€274,€283„84€(1st€Cir.€2005).Ð Ä Ðà ` àMassachusetts€law€on€certain€issues€central€to€thisÐ pÀ  Ðappeal€is€fuliginous.€€We€are€therefore€required€to€make€anÐ !l" Ðinformed€prophecy€as€to€how€the€SJC€would€rule€if€confronted€withÐ È"$ Ðthe€same€questions.òòóó€€òòBlinzleróó€v.€òòMarriott€Int'l,€Inc.óó,€81€F.3dÐ ° Ð1148,€1151€(1st€Cir.€1996).€€In€making€this€prediction,€we€relyÐ \¬ Ðfirst€on€settled€Massachusetts€law€and€build€from€there€byÐ X Ðreference€to€case€law€in€other€jurisdictions׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€to€the€policiesÐ ´  Ðenunciated€in€the€Massachusetts€cases.€€òòSeeóó€òòMooresóó€v.€òòGreenburgóó,Ð ` ° Ð834€F.2d€1105,€1107€(1st€Cir.€1987);òòóó€òòMurphyóó€v.€òòErwin„Wasey,€Inc.óó,Ð  \  Ð460€F.2d€661,€663€(1st€Cir.€1972).ò òó ó€€We€are€entitled€to€assume€thatÐ ¸  Ðthe€highest€court€of€the€state€would€apply€the€rule€that€would€bestÐ d´  Ðimplement€those€policies.€€òòKathiosóó€v.€òòGen.€Motors€Corp.óó,€862€F.2dÐ `  Ð944,€949„50€(1st€Cir.€1988);€òòMooresóó,€834€F.2d€at€1107.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àWe€begin€with€what€can€be€gleaned€from€the€MassachusettsÐ h¸ Ðcases.€€In€construing€a€will€or€other€testamentary€instrument,€theÐ d Ðtestator's€intent€governs.€€òòClymeróó€v.€òòMayoóó,€473€N.E.2d€1084,€1094Ð À Ð(Mass.€1985).€€Charitable€gifts€are€impressed€with€a€kind€of€quasi„Ð l¼ Ðtrust,€which€demands€that€they€be€applied€to€charitable€purposes.€Ð h ÐòòSeeóó€òòHillmanóó€v.€òòRoman€Catholic€Bishop€of€Fall€Riveróó,€508€N.E.2d€118,Ð Ä Ð119€n.3€(Mass.€App.€Ct.€1987)€("A€gift€with€a€general€charitableÐ pÀ  Ðintent,€of€course,€imposes€a€trust€of€a€sort€in€the€sense€that€theÐ !l" Ðgrantee€may€not€use€the€assets€for€private,€personal€purposes;€theÐ È"$ Ðassets€must€be€used€for€charitable€purposes€consistent€with€thoseÐ t$Ä& Ðof€the€designated€charity.");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBrighamóó€v.€òòPeter€BrentÐ  &p!( ÐBrigham€Hosp.óó,€134€F.€513,€517€(1st€Cir.€1904)€(describing€thisÐ Ì'#* Ðphenomenon,€under€Massachusetts€law,€as€"a€quasi€trust"€not€"a€trueÐ ° Ðtrust");€òòSmithóó€v.€òòLivermoreóó,€10€N.E.2d€117,€125€(Mass.€1937)Ð \¬ Ð(stating€that€gifts€to€charitable€corporations€in€Massachusetts€areÐ X Ðconsidered€gifts€upon€trust€for€charitable€purposes).Ð ´  Ðà ` àIn€Massachusetts,€an€organization€that€is€the€beneficiaryÐ ` ° Ðof€a€charitable€bequest€is€not€disqualified€from€receiving€theÐ  \  Ðbequest€merely€because€it€has€merged€with€another€charity€or€hasÐ ¸  Ðceased€actively€to€provide€charitable€services.€€òòSeeóó€òòOld€ColonyÐ d´  ÐTrust€Co.óó€v.€òòWinchester€Home€for€Aged€Womenóó,€85€N.E.2d€622,€623„24Ð `  Ð(Mass.€1949);€òòOld€Colony€Trust€Co.óó€v.€òòThird€Universalist€Soc'y€ofÐ ¼  ÐCambridgeóó,€188€N.E.€711,€711„12€(Mass.€1934);€òòBoston€Safe€DepositÐ h¸ Ð&€Trust€Co.óó€v.€òòStrattonóó,€156€N.E.€885,€888„89€(Mass.€1927).€€InÐ d Ðeach€of€these€cases,€however,€the€beneficiary,€though€no€longerÐ À Ðitself€providing€charitable€services,€had€the€capacity€to€redirectÐ l¼ Ðits€funds€to€another€organization€that€was€actively€engaged€inÐ h Ðcharitable€endeavors.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòWinchester€Homeóó,€85€N.E.2d€at€623Ð Ä Ð(noting€that€although€the€named€beneficiary€itself€no€longerÐ pÀ  Ðfunctioned€as€a€home€for€elderly€women,€it€continued€to€exist€as€aÐ !l" Ðcorporation€and€to€use€its€resources€to€support€a€comparableÐ È"$ Ðfacility€in€the€same€community).Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àThis€distinction€seems€to€have€driven€the€SJC's€decisionÐ  &p!( Ðin€òòSleeperóó€v.€òòCamp€Menotomyóó,€223€N.E.2d€696€(Mass.€1967).€€There,Ð Ì'#* Ða€testator€left€a€bequest€to€the€Arlington€Girl€Scouts€(AGS).€€òòId.óóÐ x)È$, Ðat€696.€€Before€the€testator's€death,€the€corporation€thatÐ $+t&. Ðpreviously€had€operated€as€AGS€disaffiliated€with€the€Girl€ScoutsÐ ° Ðand€went€forward€as€the€same€corporate€entity,€albeit€under€the€newÐ \¬ Ðname€Camp€Menotomy.€€òòId.óó€at€697.€€As€such,€it€ran€a€nonprofitÐ X Ðsummer€camp€for€girls.€€òòId.óó€€The€SJC€held€that€the€corporation€wasÐ ´  Ðineligible€to€receive€the€bequest€because€it€no€longer€had€anyÐ ` ° Ðinvolvement€in€the€scouting€movement.€€òòId.óó€at€697„98.Ð  \  Ðà ` àMassachusetts€law€thus€appears€to€require€that€a€donee€ofÐ ¸  Ða€charitable€bequest€be€able€and€willing,€at€a€bare€minimum,€toÐ d´  Ðdirect€the€funds€received€to€charitable€purposes€of€the€sameÐ `  Ðgeneral€type€and€kind€that€it€historically€had€performed.€€FailingÐ ¼  Ðthat,€the€courts€will€appoint€a€trustee€to€effectuate€theÐ h¸ Ðtestator's€charitable€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòHubbardóó€v.€òòWorcester€Art€Museumóó,Ð d Ð80€N.E.€490,€494€(Mass.€1907)€(explaining€that€"[i]f€theÐ À Ðcorporation,€at€the€time€of€the€probate€of€the€will,€was€incapableÐ l¼ Ðof€taking€the€property€and€carrying€out€the€general€charitableÐ h Ðintent€of€the€testator,€the€court€.€.€.€would€appoint€a€trustee€toÐ Ä Ðact€in€its€place");€òòBlissóó€v.€òòAm.€Bible€Soc'yóó,€84€Mass.€334,€336„37Ð pÀ  Ð(1861)€(similar).Ð !l" Ðà ` àWe€conclude,€therefore,€that€the€Massachusetts€casesÐ È"$ Ðpoint€strongly€to€a€rule€that€an€organization€cannot€receive€aÐ t$Ä& Ðcharitable€bequest€unless€it€is€both€capable€of€using€that€bequestÐ  &p!( Ðfor€the€intended€purpose€and€willing€to€do€so.€€Against€thisÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âbackdrop,€we€must€decide€whether€the€bequest€to€BRMC€was€intendedÐ x)È$, Ðfor€a€charitable€purpose€and,€if€so,€whether€BRMC€had€the€capacityÐ ° Ðto€carry€out€that€purpose€at€the€critical€time.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àUnder€Massachusetts€law,€a€gift€to€a€charitableÐ X Ðorganization€is€ordinarily€construed€as€a€gift€for€a€charitableÐ ´  Ðpurpose.€€òòSeeóó€òòWellesley€Coll.óó€v.€òòAtt'y€Gen.óó,€49€N.E.2d€220,€223Ð ` ° Ð(Mass.€1943);€òòOsgoodóó€v.€òòRogersóó,€71€N.E.€306,€308€(Mass.€1904).€Ð  \  ÐThere€is€no€dispute€that€both€at€the€time€Ms.€Krauss€executed€herÐ ¸  Ðwill€and€at€the€time€the€probate€court€sanctioned€the€proposedÐ d´  Ðtrusts,€BRMC€was€a€nonprofit€corporation,€duly€qualified€underÐ `  Ðsection€501(c)(3)€of€the€Internal€Revenue€Code,€26€U.S.C.€ððÐ ¼  Ð501(c)(3),€and,€thus,€a€charitable€organization.€€Against€thisÐ h¸ Ðbackdrop,€we€readily€conclude€that€Ms.€Krauss€intended€the€bequestÐ d Ðto€be€used€for€a€charitable€purpose.€€The€will's€explicit€referenceÐ À Ðto€"a€bed€for€indigent€patients"€makes€this€clear,€as€does€theÐ l¼ Ðtrust€article€naming€BRMC€as€a€beneficiary€(which€states€that€theÐ h Ðresidue€of€the€trust€shall€be€distributed€"in€equal€shares€to€suchÐ Ä Ðof€the€following€charitable€organizations"€so€long€as€eachÐ pÀ  Ðorganization€then€qualifies€as€a€charity€under€the€Internal€RevenueÐ !l" ÐCode).Ð È"$ Ðà ` àViewed€in€this€light,€the€question€reduces€to€whetherÐ t$Ä& ÐBRMC,€in€its€new€incarnation€as€a€corporation€whose€sole€purpose€isÐ  &p!( Ðto€marshal€its€assets,€liquidate€them,€and€distribute€the€proceedsÐ Ì'#* Ðto€creditors,€is€eligible€to€receive€a€charitable€bequest.€€On€thisÐ x)È$, Ðissue,€the€Massachusetts€cases€are€silent€and€the€authoritiesÐ $+t&. Ðelsewhere€are€divided.€€òòCompareóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€re€Will€of€Kraetzeróó,€462Ð ° ÐN.Y.S.2d€1009,€1012„13€(Sur.€Ct.€1983)€(holding€that€a€bankruptÐ \¬ Ðhospital€is€not€capable€of€implementing€the€purpose€of€a€charitableÐ X Ðbequest€and€that€the€hospital€is€therefore€ineligible€to€receiveÐ ´  Ðthe€bequest),€òòwithóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòMontclair€Nat'l€Bank€&€Trust€Co.óó€v.€òòSetonÐ ` ° ÐHall€Coll.€of€Med.€&€Dentistryóó,€233€A.2d€195,€200€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.Ð  \  ÐApp.€Div.€1967)€(concluding€otherwise€on€the€ground€that€theÐ ¸  Ðpayment€of€debts€incurred€in€the€furtherance€of€charitable€purposesÐ d´  Ðis€itself€a€charitable€purpose).Ð `  Ðà ` àWe€navigate€through€these€uncharted€waters€by€followingÐ ¼  Ða€pole€star€of€Massachusetts€law:€€the€principle€that,€inÐ h¸ Ðconstruing€testamentary€instruments,€courts,€whenever€possible,Ð d Ðshould€give€full€effect€to€the€testator's€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòClymeróó,€473Ð À ÐN.E.2d€at€1094.€€The€language€that€Ms.€Krauss€used€in€her€willÐ l¼ Ðoffers€a€window€into€her€intent:€€she€was€concerned€about€helpingÐ h Ðsick€persons€who€could€not€afford€to€pay€for€health€care.€€That€isÐ Ä Ða€fairly€typical€species€of€charitable€intent;€a€charitable€actÐ pÀ  Ðgenerally€is€thought€to€be€an€act€of€benevolence€or€generosityÐ !l" Ðtoward€others,€in€particular€the€needy.€€òòSeeóó€òòW.€Mass.€LifecareÐ È"$ ÐCorp.óó€v.€òòBd.€of€Assessorsóó,€747€N.E.2d€97,€103€(Mass.€2001);Ð t$Ä& ÐòòSaltonstallóó€v.€òòSandersóó,€93€Mass.€446,€469€(1865).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àNormally,€a€testator€who€leaves€a€charitable€bequest€actsÐ Ì'#* Ðwith€a€prospective€intention.€€òòSeeóó€òòWill€of€Kraetzeróó,€462€N.Y.S.2dÐ x)È$, Ðat€1013.€€She€intends€that€the€bequest€will€increase€the€charity'sÐ $+t&. Ðgood€works€by€helping€it€to€continue€furnishing€services,€to€expandÐ ° Ðservice€delivery,€or€the€like.€€We€find€it€difficult€to€imagineÐ \¬ Ðthat,€in€the€absence€of€special€circumstances,€a€person€with€aÐ X Ðgeneric€charitable€intent€would€choose€to€subsidize€a€charitableÐ ´  Ðorganization€if€she€knew€that€the€funds€would€be€used€only€to€payÐ ` ° Ðcreditors€and€not€to€assist€in€providing€any€future€or€additionalÐ  \  Ðcharitable€services.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThe€bankruptcy€court€thought€that€since€BRMC€incurred€itsÐ d´  Ðdebts€in€the€furtherance€of€its€charitable€mission,€the€payment€ofÐ `  Ðthose€debts€could€be€deemed€charitable€in€nature.€€òòBRMC€IIóó,€298Ð ¼  ÐB.R.€at€28„30.ò òó ó€€That€reasoning€has€some€superficial€appeal:€€itÐ h¸ Ðwould€have€been€impossible€for€BRMC€to€function€effectively€as€aÐ d Ðhospital€without€credit€and€in€that€sense€the€provision€of€creditÐ À Ðwas€vital€to€its€ability€to€discharge€its€charitable€function.€€InÐ l¼ Ðthe€usual€case,€however,€the€extension€of€credit€is€not€itself€anÐ h Ðact€of€charity,€and€in€a€real„world€sense,€the€payment€of€debtsÐ Ä Ðafter€a€hospital€ceases€operations€does€not€further€the€hospital'sÐ pÀ  Ðability€to€carry€out€its€charitable€mission.€€For€that€reason,€weÐ !l" Ðthink€it€would€be€inconsistent€with€Ms.€Krauss's€intent€for€a€dead„Ð È"$ Ðâ âas„a„doornail€hospital€to€receive€a€portion€of€the€trust€corpusÐ t$Ä& Ðwith€the€understanding€that€it€would€be€spent€solely€to€reimburseÐ ° Ðcreditors€for€debts€previously€incurred.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àWe€are€also€unpersuaded€that€holding€a€bankrupt€hospitalÐ X Ðincapable€of€taking€a€charitable€bequest€will€have€the€direÐ ´  Ðconsequences€predicted€by€the€appellees.€€While€a€rule€thatÐ ` ° Ðcharitable€bequests€could€not€be€used€to€pay€debts€might€have€aÐ  \  Ðcrippling€effect€on€a€charity's€ability€to€obtain€credit€and,Ð ¸  Ðhence,€on€its€ability€to€function,€our€holding€is€not€nearly€soÐ d´  Ðbroad.€€We€decide€only€that,€absent€a€contrary€provision€in€theÐ `  Ðwill€or€indenture€of€trust,€a€charitable€organization€that€hasÐ ¼  Ðceased€to€perform€any€charitable€work€and€that€is€incapable€ofÐ h¸ Ðredirecting€new€funds€for€charitable€purposes€is€ineligible€toÐ d Ðreceive€a€charitable€bequest€or€gift.€€That€rule€will€have€theÐ À Ðeffect,€in€a€few€cases,€of€blocking€a€charity's€creditors€fromÐ l¼ Ðaccess€to€a€new€source€of€funds€ð"ð€but€that€is€a€small€price€to€payÐ h Ðfor€honoring€the€testator's€intent.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ä Ðà ` àThis€decision€does€not€end€our€odyssey.€€We€still€mustÐ pÀ  Ðconsider€the€significance€(if€any)€of€the€time€lapse€between€theÐ !l" Ðtestator's€death€and€the€ensuing€bankruptcy.€€When€Ms.€Krauss€died,Ð È"$ ÐBRMC€was€running€a€fully€functioning€hospital€and€was€activelyÐ t$Ä& Ðengaged€in€performing€its€charitable€mission.€€By€any€standard,€itÐ ° Ðwas€then€able€to€receive€the€bequest.€€The€question€is€whether€thatÐ \¬ Ðdatum€makes€a€dispositive€difference.Ð X Ðà ` àIn€the€churches'€view,€this€accident€of€timing€isÐ ´  Ðirrelevant.€€The€only€thing€that€matters€is€that€BRMC€is€bankruptÐ ` ° Ðnow€and€no€money€it€receives€will€be€used€for€charitable€purposesÐ  \  Ðon€a€going„forward€basis.€€BRMC€has€a€different€viewpoint;€itÐ ¸  Ðasseverates€that€its€rights€to€the€bequest€vested€as€of€the€date€ofÐ d´  ÐMs.€Krauss's€demise;€that€it€was€then€eligible€to€receive€theÐ `  Ðfunds;€and€that€subsequent€events€cannot€Ô_ÔdefeaseÔ_Ô€that€entitlement.€Ð ¼  ÐNeither€of€these€positions€is€foolproof.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àOn€the€one€hand,€the€churches'€proposed€rule€that€aÐ d Ðbeneficiary's€status€at€the€time€of€distribution€is€the€relevantÐ À Ðbenchmark€seems€as€shaky€as€a€shack€built€upon€shifting€sands.€€TheÐ l¼ ÐMassachusetts€cases€offer€no€support€for€such€a€hard„and„fast€rule;Ð h Ðwhat€little€authority€we€have€found€points€in€the€oppositeÐ Ä Ðdirection.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòHubbardóó,€80€N.E.€at€494€(suggesting,€inÐ pÀ  Ðdictum,€that€the€capacity€to€receive€a€charitable€bequest€should€beÐ !l" Ðjudged€at€the€time€of€probate€of€the€will).€€Moreover,€such€a€ruleÐ È"$ Ðwould€have€the€potential€to€work€serious€mischief.€€If€those€inÐ t$Ä& Ðcharge€of€the€distribution€of€funds€have€the€power,€through€actionÐ  &p!( Ðor€inaction,€to€affect€the€identity€of€those€who€receive€the€funds,Ð Ì'#* Ðthe€risk€of€abuse€might€well€be€unacceptable.€€òòSeeóó€òòMontclairóó,€233Ð x)È$, ÐA.2d€at€199„200.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àThe€churches'€suggested€rule€also€raises€the€Ô_ÔboggartÔ_Ô€ofÐ ° Ðunnecessary€litigation€aimed€at€influencing€the€timing€ofÐ \¬ Ðdistributions.€€We€think€that€the€Massachusetts€cases,€to€theÐ X Ðextent€they€shed€any€light€on€this€issue,€exhibit€a€preference€forÐ ´  Ða€rule€that€is€not€contingent€on€the€whims€of€third€parties.€€òòSeeóóÐ ` ° ÐòòSleeperóó,€223€N.E.2d€at€697€(indicating€that€the€eligibility€of€aÐ  \  Ðcharitable€organization€to€receive€a€bequest€ought€to€be€determinedÐ ¸  Ðat€the€time€"the€will€became€effective").ò òÐ d´  Ðà ` àó óOn€the€other€hand,€BRMC's€position€is€also€open€toÐ `  Ðquestion.€€While€Massachusetts€law€is€clear€that€the€bequest€vestedÐ ¼  Ðat€Ms.€Krauss's€death,€òòseeóó€òòCookóó€v.€òòHaywardóó,€51€N.E.€1075,€1076Ð h¸ Ð(Mass.€1898),€vesting€is€a€concept€that€has€different€shades€ofÐ d Ðmeaning€in€different€contexts.€€For€example,€although€non„Ð À Ðcontingent€bequests€vest€at€the€time€of€the€testator's€death,€aÐ l¼ Ðwill€may€provide€for€a€built„in€delay€in€distribution€(as€in€theÐ h Ðcase€of€an€intervening€life€estate).€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBrighamóó,€134€F.€atÐ Ä Ð518„19.€€In€such€cases,€many€years€may€pass€before€the€beneficiaryÐ pÀ  Ðis€entitled€to€a€distribution.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óóÐ !l" Ðà ` àOne€thing€is€certain:€€vesting€notwithstanding,€theÐ ° Ðbequest€was€not€payable€immediately€upon€Ms.€Krauss's€death.€€AnÐ \¬ Ðunbroken€skein€of€Massachusetts€cases,€dating€back€to€the€earlyÐ X Ðnineteenth€century,€recognizes€that€time€is€needed€for€an€estate€toÐ ´  Ðgather€the€testator's€assets€and€settle€any€debts.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð ` ° ÐòòAndrewsóó€v.€òòHunnemanóó,€23€Mass.€126,€129„130€(1828).€€ThisÐ  \  Ðconsideration€has€particular€force€with€respect€to€the€payment€ofÐ ¸  Ðresidual€legacies,€as€debts,€expenses,€taxes,€and€other€bequestsÐ d´  Ðall€must€be€paid€before€the€amount€of€the€residue€can€beÐ `  Ðdetermined,€let€alone€distributed.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlaneyóó€v.€òòBlaneyóó,€55€Mass.Ð ¼  Ð107,€115€(1848).Ð h¸ Ðà ` àAs€a€result,€unless€a€will€specifies€some€later€date€ð"ðÐ d Ðand€Ms.€Krauss's€will€did€not€ð"ð€Massachusetts€courts€hold€thatÐ À Ðbequests€are€deemed€payable€one€year€after€the€death€of€theÐ l¼ Ðtestator.€€òòSeeóó€òòPorteróó€v.€òòKetchumóó,€203€N.E.2d€84,€84€(Mass.€1964).€Ð h ÐNot€coincidentally,€this€interval€corresponds€to€Massachusetts'sÐ Ä Ðone„year€period€for€filing€claims€against€an€estate.€€òòSeeóó€Mass.Ð pÀ  ÐGen.€Laws€ch.€197,€ðð€9.€€Although€an€executor,€in€his€discretion,Ð !l" Ðmay€pay€a€bequest€before€this€prescriptive€period€expires,€a€suitÐ È"$ Ðto€compel€payment€of€a€bequest€will€not€lie€until€a€year€hasÐ t$Ä& Ðpassed.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrooksóó€v.€òòLyndeóó,€89€Mass.€64,€67€(1863);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóóÐ  &p!( Ðâ âMass.€Gen.€Laws€ch.€197,€ðð€20€(providing€that€interest€does€notÐ Ì'#* Ðbegin€to€accrue€on€legacies€or€bequests€until€after€the€limitationsÐ ° Ðperiod€for€claims€against€the€estate€has€expired).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àIn€sum,€the€bequest€to€BRMC€vested€upon€Ms.€Krauss'sÐ X Ðdeath€on€March€1,€1998€(when€BRMC€was€operating€a€hospital).€Ð ´  ÐHowever,€BRMC€had€no€right€to€demand€payment€of€the€bequest€untilÐ ` ° ÐMarch€1,€1999€(by€which€time€it€had€entered€bankruptcy€and€haltedÐ  \  Ðhospital€operations).€€The€crucial€question,€then,€is€which€ofÐ ¸  Ðthese€dates€controls€in€determining€BRMC's€eligibility€to€receiveÐ d´  Ðthe€bequest.Ð `  Ðà ` àAlthough€the€question€is€close,€we€conclude€that€the€SJCÐ ¼  Ðwould€choose€the€date€of€vesting€as€the€vantage€point€from€which€toÐ h¸ Ðdetermine€a€charitable€organization's€eligibility€to€receive€aÐ d Ðbequest.€€We€reach€this€conclusion€partially€by€analogy€to€the€caseÐ À Ðof€natural€persons.€€The€SJC€has€held€that€when€a€will€contains€aÐ l¼ Ðbequest€that€is€contingent€on€the€donee€surviving€the€testator€andÐ h Ðthe€donee€does€survive€but€dies€before€distribution€of€the€bequest,Ð Ä Ðthe€donee's€heirs€(rather€than€the€testator's€heirs)€are€entitledÐ pÀ  Ðto€receive€the€bequest.€€òòChildsóó€v.€òòRussellóó,€52€Mass.€16,€25€(1846).€Ð !l" ÐThis€holding€makes€it€transparently€clear€that,€in€the€usual€case,Ð È"$ Ðthe€Massachusetts€courts€measure€a€donee's€eligibility€to€receiveÐ t$Ä& Ða€bequest€from€the€time€of€the€testator's€demise,€notwithstandingÐ  &p!( Ðthe€absence€of€a€right€to€immediate€possession.€€Given€that€theÐ Ì'#* Ðhuman€mind€cannot€devise€a€rule€that€would€apply€perfectly€in€allÐ x)È$, Ðcircumstances,€we€believe€that€the€SJC€would€hew€to€this€same€lineÐ $+t&. Ðof€reasoning€in€a€case€involving€a€charitable€bequest€to€aÐ ° Ðcharitable€beneficiary.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àWe€also€give€weight€to€the€fact€that€a€"date€of€vesting"Ð X Ðrule€is€an€easier€one€to€administer.€€Although€BRMC€had€no€absoluteÐ ´  Ðright€to€receive€its€share€of€the€trusts€until€a€year€after€Ms.Ð ` ° ÐKrauss's€death,€the€trustees€had€the€authority€to€make€such€aÐ  \  Ðdistribution€at€an€earlier€date.€€Had€they€done€so,€we€do€not€thinkÐ ¸  Ðanyone€would€suggest€with€a€straight€face€that€BRMC€should€beÐ d´  Ðrequired€to€refund€the€bequest€because€it€ceased€operations€beforeÐ `  Ða€full€year€had€passed.€€Thus,€measuring€the€organization'sÐ ¼  Ðeligibility€to€receive€the€bequest€as€of€the€date€when€distributionÐ h¸ Ðcould€be€mandated€would€reintroduce€the€prospect€of€manipulation€onÐ d Ðthe€part€of€the€fiduciary€and,€thus,€would€wind€up€at€crossÐ À Ðpurposes€with€the€Massachusetts€policy€favoring€mechanical€rules€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€distribution€of€estates.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð h Ðà ` àThat€ends€this€aspect€of€the€matter.€We€conclude€that€theÐ Ä ÐSJC€would€find€it€preferable€to€measure€eligibility€from€the€timeÐ pÀ  Ðof€death.€€Thus,€BRMC's€right€to€the€bequest€was€complete€upon€Ms.Ð !l" ÐKrauss's€death.€€As€BRMC€was€a€fully€functioning€hospital€at€thatÐ È"$ Ðtime,€it€was€eligible€to€receive€the€bequest.€€The€fact€that€itsÐ t$Ä& Ðcontinued€existence€as€a€hospital€was€short„lived€did€not€alterÐ ° Ðthat€reality.€€Accordingly,€as€between€these€claimants,€L„BRMC€isÐ \¬ Ðentitled€to€the€disputed€funds.Ð X Ðò òIV.€€RELIEF€FROM€THE€INJUNCTIONó óÐ ´  Ðà ` àOne€loose€end€remains.€€As€a€fallback€position,€theÐ | Ì Ðchurches€contend€that€even€if€we€find€L„BRMC€eligible€to€receiveÐ ( x  Ðthe€bequest€ð"ð€as€we€have€ð"ð€we€nonetheless€should€reverse€the€lowerÐ Ô$  Ðcourts'€refusal€to€grant€relief€from€the€Plan's€injunctiveÐ €Ð  Ðprovisions,€quoted€òòsupraóó€note€2,€so€that€the€churches€can€initiateÐ ,|  Ða€proceeding€in€the€Massachusetts€probate€court€to€conform€theÐ Ø( Ðtrusts€to€the€will€and€reintroduce€the€"bed€for€indigent€patients"Ð „Ô Ðlimitation.€€BRMC€argues€that€this€is€a€non„issue€because€theÐ 0€ Ðearlier€probate€orders€constitute€a€bar€to€further€proceedings€onÐ Ü, Ðres€judicata€grounds.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àWe€need€not€reach€the€res€judicata€issue€(and,Ð 4„ Ðconsequently,€do€not€attempt€to€resolve€it).€€While€the€record€doesÐ à0 Ðnot€reveal€the€bankruptcy€court's€reasons€for€denying€relief€fromÐ ŒÜ  Ðthe€injunction,€the€district€court's€opinion€affords€some€guidance.€Ð 8!ˆ" ÐIn€upholding€the€bankruptcy€court's€refusal€to€relax€theÐ ä"4$ Ðinjunction,€that€court€cited€the€substantial€delay€in€theÐ $à& Ðliquidation€of€BRMC€that€this€litigation€already€had€caused€andÐ <&Œ!( Ðconcluded€that,€in€all€events,€any€proceeding€brought€by€theÐ è'8#* Ðchurches€in€the€probate€court€likely€would€be€a€waste€of€time.€Ð ”)ä$, ÐòòBRMC€IIIóó,€2004€WL€1778881,€at€*5„*6€&€n.12.Ð @+&. Ðà ` àAlthough€the€matter€is€far€from€clear,€we€assume,€forÐ ° Ðargument's€sake,€that€the€probate€court€retains€the€authority,€evenÐ \¬ Ðat€this€late€date,€to€modify€its€decree€confirming€Ms.€Krauss'sÐ X Ðestate€plan.€€òòCf.óó€òòO'Brienóó€v.€òòDwightóó,€294€N.E.2d€363,€380„81€(Mass.Ð ´  Ð1973)€(holding€that€probate€courts€have€the€continuing€power€toÐ ` ° Ðrevoke€or€modify€their€decrees,€but€suggesting€that€such€actionÐ  \  Ðwould€only€be€appropriate€in€limited€circumstances).€€Even€so,€theÐ ¸  Ðmere€fact€that€relief€which€is€not€available€to€a€litigant€in€theÐ d´  Ðbankruptcy€court€conceivably€might€be€available€in€another€forum€isÐ `  Ðnot,€in€and€of€itself,€sufficient€to€require€the€bankruptcy€courtÐ ¼  Ðto€lift€an€injunction€or€a€stay.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòIn€re€Federated€Dep'tÐ h¸ ÐStores,€Inc.óó,€328€F.3d€829,€836„37€(6th€Cir.€2003)€(holding€thatÐ d Ðthe€bankruptcy€court€acted€within€its€discretion€in€refusing€toÐ À Ðrelax€an€anti„suit€injunction,€even€though€the€denial€of€reliefÐ l¼ Ðmight€cause€hardship€to€the€movant's€ability€to€litigate€a€stateÐ h Ðlaw€claim).€€The€bankruptcy€court€is€entitled€to€consider€not€onlyÐ Ä Ðthe€nature€of€the€remedies€that€might€be€available€in€a€parallelÐ pÀ  Ð(non„bankruptcy)€proceeding€but€also€the€substantiality€of€theÐ !l" Ðasserted€claim€and€the€effect€of€granting€the€exception€on€theÐ È"$ Ðbankruptcy€case€as€a€whole.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Calore€Express€Co.óó,€288€F.3dÐ t$Ä& Ð22,€35„36€(1st€Cir.€2002).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àWe€review€a€bankruptcy€court's€decision€not€to€exempt€aÐ Ì'#* Ðparticular€claim€from€the€sweep€of€an€injunction€or€stayÐ x)È$, Ðprohibiting€the€maintenance€of€non„bankruptcy€litigation€for€abuseÐ $+t&. Ðof€discretion.€€òòIn€re€C€&€S€Grain€Co.óó,€47€F.3d€233,€238€(7th€Cir.Ð ° Ð1995).€€Having€reviewed€the€record€with€care,€we€discern€no€abuseÐ \¬ Ðof€discretion€here.€€There€are€a€series€of€obstacles€standing€inÐ X Ðthe€churches'€way.€€First,€we€question€whether€the€probate€courtÐ ´  Ðwould€entertain€the€churches'€belated€petition€to€modify€the€estateÐ ` ° Ðplan.€€Second,€even€if€the€probate€court€would€entertain€theÐ  \  Ðpetition,€we€view€the€chances€of€the€churches€winning€reformationÐ ¸  Ðas€small.€€Third,€even€if€the€churches€were€to€prevail€in€reformingÐ d´  Ðthe€indentures€of€trust,€it€is€problematic€whether€that€victoryÐ `  Ðwould€change€the€ultimate€analysis€vis„„vis€BRMC's€entitlement€toÐ ¼  Ðthe€bequest.€€After€all,€at€the€time€of€Ms.€Krauss's€death,€BRMCÐ h¸ Ðwas€functioning€as€a€hospital€and,€thus,€was€still€capable€ofÐ d Ðapplying€the€bequest€to€the€care€of€indigent€patients.€€And,Ð À Ðfinally,€even€if€the€churches€succeeded€in€stripping€away€BRMC'sÐ l¼ Ðentitlement€to€the€bequest,€it€is€not€certain€that€they€wouldÐ h Ðbenefit.€€òòCf.óó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòTown€of€Brooklineóó€v.€òòBarnesóó,€87€N.E.2d€843,Ð Ä Ð845„47€(Mass.€1949)€(holding€that€a€charitable€gift,€which€couldÐ pÀ  Ðnot€be€distributed€because€of€the€legatee's€unwillingness€to€carryÐ !l" Ðout€the€testator's€charitable€intent,€could€inspire€an€applicationÐ È"$ Ðof€the€doctrine€of€cy€pres€so€that€the€court€could€order€theÐ t$Ä& Ðbequest€paid€to€a€different€institution€and,€thus,€effectuate€theÐ  &p!( Ðtestator's€charitable€intent).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€bottom€line,€then,€is€that€the€churches'€anticipatedÐ x)È$, Ðprobate€claim€is€tenuous€at€best.€€That€fact,€coupled€with€theÐ $+t&. Ðdistrict€court's€accurate€observation€that€the€battle€for€theÐ ° Ðbequest€already€has€caused€protracted€delay€in€winding€up€theÐ \¬ Ðbankruptcy€case,€convinces€us€that€the€refusal€to€lift€theÐ X Ðinjunction€was€comfortably€within€the€encincture€of€the€lowerÐ ´  Ðcourts'€discretion.Ð ` ° Ðò òV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ  \  Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€In€life,€timing€often€isÐ Ô$  Ðimportant.€€So€it€is€here:€€on€the€date€of€the€testator's€death,Ð €Ð  ÐBRMC€was€eligible€to€receive€the€charitable€bequest€because€it€wasÐ ,|  Ðthen€operating€a€nonprofit€hospital.€€Our€conclusion€that€the€dateÐ Ø( Ðof€death€(and,€hence,€the€date€of€vesting)€controls€may€in€someÐ „Ô Ðsense€seem€arbitrary€(after€all,€a€few€months€either€way€would€haveÐ 0€ Ðmade€a€dispositive€difference).€€But€there€are€no€perfect€solutionsÐ Ü, Ðto€imbricated€problems€of€this€sort.€€Thus,€we€base€our€conclusionÐ ˆØ Ðnot€on€its€inevitability,€but,€rather,€on€our€belief€that€the€SJC,Ð 4„ Ðif€squarely€confronted€with€this€conundrum,€would€hold€that€theÐ à0 Ðrelevant€date€for€determining€the€capacity€of€a€beneficiary€to€takeÐ ŒÜ  Ða€charitable€bequest€is€the€vesting€date,€regardless€of€whether€theÐ 8!ˆ" Ðdistribution€is€made€on€that€date€or€at€some€later€time.€€In€ourÐ ä"4$ Ðview,€this€result€represents€a€reasonable€accommodation€ofÐ $à& Ðcompeting€centrifugal€and€centripetal€forces,€most€particularly,Ð <&Œ!( ÐMassachusetts's€policy€favoring€the€preservation€of€charitableÐ è'8#* Ðâ âgifts€for€charitable€purposes€and€Massachusetts's€expressedÐ ”)ä$, Ðpreference€for€mechanical€rules€of€descent€and€distribution€inÐ ° Ðmatters€of€testamentary€distribution.Ð \¬ Ðâ âÌò òòòAffirmedóó.ó ó