Karma International, S.a.r.l. (EISA), and Keith Cooper, the bankruptcy trustee for CHS Electronics, Inc. (CHS), appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their state law claims against Bernd Karré, Patrick Matzinger, Joaquim Ribeiro, Raoul Stella, Thierry Van Doren, Robert Windisch, and Mottar Holding, N.V. 1

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims based on a finding that it could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over either plaintiffs claims. After thorough review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the action, EISA’s claims were not “related to” CHS’s bankruptcy in a manner that would support bankruptcy jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Any recovery EISA might make on its claims would flow to CHS’s bankruptcy estate only by virtue of a contractual relationship between CHS and EISA’s current owner, Europa IT, promising CHS a share of the litigation proceeds. This relationship is too remote to support “related to” jurisdiction under § 1334(b). “Related to” jurisdiction is appropriate only when “the outcome of the proceeding could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” Miller v. Remira, Inc. (In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc.), 910 F.2d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins (In re Pacor, Inc.), 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984)). This case does not satisfy that standard.

As for CHS’s own claims, they were premised not on injuries suffered by CHS, but on injuries sustained by EISA. CHS lacks standing to sue for injuries to EISA.

Standing requires that a plaintiff demonstrate an injury in fact to its own interests. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-35, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972) (“[T]he ‘injury in fact’ test ... requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured.”). EISA’s loss of control over its subsidiaries and other assets was a loss to EISA, not a loss to CHS.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading, for it was clear in this case that the jurisdictional deficiency lay in the facts of the plaintiffs’ case, not the technicalities of their pleadings.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.