28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding for turnover of estate property as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Professional Technical Services, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Professional Technical Services, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-31(b)(2)(E)

This is a “core proceeding” which the Court may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b) treats turnover proceedings as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment.

Chubb v. O'Donnell (In re Hines) · filed 1987-07-23(b)(2)(E)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), the court finds that this is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Accordingly, the court shall enter final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a trustee’s proceeding to recover a debtor’s tax refund as a core turnover proceeding.

In Re Smith · filed 1987-09-11(b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), wherein the Trustee seeks the turnover of $3,195.16 from a tax refund received by the Debtors postpetition.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats litigation over a creditor’s state law claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp. · filed 1987-10-14(b)(2)(B)

We thus conclude that Southeastern's cause of action based upon state law is correctly characterized as a claim against the bankrupt estate of Meyertech. As such, the litigation of its merits is a core proceeding under the bankruptcy judge's jurisdiction as provided by Sec. 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) covers turnover of estate property but does not authorize recovery of cash a debtor paid under a court-approved settlement.

Syntex Corp. v. Charter Co. (In Re Charter Co.) · filed 1987-11-24(b)(2)(E)

The Court finds section 157(b)(2)(E) to be inapplicable to the instant case. The statute must be interpreted primarily as a grant of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court to supervise recovery of property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 542. Cash transferred by the debtor in connection with a court approved settlement is not property of the estate and should not be recoverable under section 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter orders and judgments in core proceedings, including actions to turn over estate property.

J.A. Clark Mechanical, Inc. v. Case Western Reserve University (In Re J.A. Clark Mechanical, Inc.) · filed 1987-12-01(b)(1), (b)(2)(E)

Moreover, since this is a core proceeding, the Court may enter appropriate orders and judgments, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1), 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats foreclosure of a matured debt owed to the bankruptcy estate as a core turnover proceeding when the debtor holds the note and mortgage.

Craig v. McCarty Ranch Trust (In re Cassidy Land & Cattle Co.) · filed 1988-01-12(b)(2)(E)

It follows, then, that the foreclosure proceeding initiated by Cassidy Land amounted to an action based on the turnover of a matured debt that is the property of the bankrupt estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 542(b). Given that a turnover proceeding is expressly enumerated as a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2)(E), we hold that the bankruptcy court had proper jurisdiction to conduct the foreclosure proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to turn over property to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Yaquinto v. Greer · filed 1988-01-20(b)(2)(E)

The bankruptcy court entered an order requiring the turnover of property to the estate of a bankrupt, which is a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats foreclosure to collect a matured debt owed to the bankruptcy estate as a core turnover proceeding when the debtor holds the note and mortgage.

Craig v. McCarty Ranch Trust (In re Cassidy Land & Cattle Co.) · filed 1988-02-10(b)(2)(E)

It follows, then, that the foreclosure proceeding initiated by Cassidy Land amounted to an action based on the turnover of a matured debt that is the property of the bankrupt estate within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 542(b). Given that a turnover proceeding is expressly enumerated as a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2)(E), we hold that the bankruptcy court had proper jurisdiction to conduct the foreclosure proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action seeking turnover of estate property as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Sininger v. Fulton (In Re Sininger) · filed 1988-03-21(b)(2)(E)

The action is brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542, seeking turnover of property of the estate. As required by L.B.R. 5.2(a), the complaint contains an allegation that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157. We hold that plaintiff is correct in this assertion, and that this is a core proceeding arising under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to collect a matured account receivable as a core turnover proceeding.

Miller v. BTS Transport Services (In Re Total Transportation, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-20(b)(2)(E)

Rather, I conclude that an action such as this on a matured account receivable is the type of turnover proceeding Congress included in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats turnover proceedings as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Wayne Manor, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare (In Re Wayne Manor, Inc.) · filed 1988-07-15(b)(2)(E)

Therefore, this Court rules that it has the jurisdiction over the states to deal with turnover as a core provision under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and that Congress has made it clear that for these purposes, the states are subject to the Bankruptcy Act.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to recover property of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding, even when the property is pledged as collateral.

L.P. Maun, M.D., Ltd. v. Salyapongse (In Re L.P. Maun, M.D., Ltd.) · filed 1988-11-09(b)(2)(E)

Accordingly, the Court finds that this action is for turnover of property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 542(a), which is ... within this Court’s jurisdiction as a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make an action to collect an account receivable a core turnover proceeding when liability is genuinely disputed and depends on state contract law.

United Security & Communications, Inc. v. Rite Aid Corp. (In Re United Security & Communications, Inc.) · filed 1988-12-02(b)(2)(E)

Accordingly, because the accounts receivable action before the Court involves a bona fide dispute as to liability, the resolution of which is solely dependent upon application of state law contract principles, it cannot be classified as a core turnover proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats collection of unearned commissions listed as estate property as a core proceeding when the collection is akin to turnover of estate property.

Auto Dealer Services, Inc. v. Prestige Motor Car Imports, Inc. (In Re Auto Dealer Services, Inc.) · filed 1989-02-03(b)(2)(E)

The Court agrees with ADSI’s position that the proceeding is a “core” proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E) and (O). In this case, the causes of action for unearned advance commission were listed in the Disclosure Statement as property of the estate. Because the collection of these unearned commissions is akin to the turnover of property of the estate, the requirements of subsection (2)(E) are met.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to recover specific property of a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Bell v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (In Re Bell) · filed 1989-03-10(b)(2)(E)

We therefore conclude that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats proceedings to turn over property of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings, even when the property is held in an ERISA plan.

Watson v. Kincaid (In Re Kincaid) · filed 1989-03-16(b)(2)(E)

Proceedings to turnover property of the estate are “core” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). We will not read 29 U.S.C. § 1132 to deprive a bankruptcy court of its jurisdiction over such matters, especially in light oU 29 U.S.C. § 1144(d) which expressly prohibits ERISA’s impairment of other federal laws.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats turnover proceedings as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Wallace v. G.M.A.C. (In Re Wallace) · filed 1989-04-19(b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) which this Court may hear and determine.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core turnover proceeding.

In Re Redman Oil Co., Inc. · filed 1989-05-19(b)(1), (b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (2)(E).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a turnover proceeding as a core proceeding.

In Re Closson · filed 1989-05-22(b)(1), (b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats proceedings seeking turnover of specific estate property as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court can hear and determine.

Panas v. Polonia Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Panas) · filed 1989-06-07(b)(2)(E)

A proceeding seeking a turnover of specific property of the estate is expressly made a core proceeding by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Therefore, this is a matter which we not only must hear, but also must determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to turn over a qualifying debt owed to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Nuckols & Associates Security, Inc. v. Bouchard Transportation Co. (In Re Nuckols & Associates Security, Inc.) · filed 1989-12-29(b)(2)(E)

As a further reason for reaching the conclusion which we do, we find that a proceeding such as that before us is within the purview of 11 U.S.C. Section 542(b). That statutory provision makes clear that certain debts owed to the estate are the proper subject of a turnover proceeding, and are thus core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a disputed state law claim a core turnover proceeding when recovery depends on first establishing liability.

Marshall v. Michigan Department of Agriculture (In Re Marshall) · filed 1990-07-10(b)(2)(E)

Since a resolution of those actions involves a state law determination of MDA’s liability under the contract, it is a step away from the true Section 542 turnover proceeding and therefore does not constitute a core proceeding under Section 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding seeking turnover of funds held by a bankruptcy trustee as a core proceeding.

In re Pelham Fence Co. · filed 1990-08-13(b)(2)(E)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157 treats proceedings seeking turnover of estate property as core proceedings.

Williams v. Threet (In Re Threet) · filed 1990-08-28(b)(2)(E)

This Court finds that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not treat a Chapter 7 trustee’s action to collect a disputed prepetition account receivable governed by state law as a core turnover proceeding.

Staats v. Adolfson & Peterson, Inc. (In Re Statewide Pools, Inc.) · filed 1991-01-30(b)(2)(E)

Accordingly, because there exists a legitimate dispute as to Schafer-oth’s liability, and further because the resolution of such dispute is governed by state law only, this proceeding is not a core turnover proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) makes an action to turn over estate property a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Chrysler (In Re Continental Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1991-11-06(b)(2)(E)

Because the basis of this adversary proceeding is a turnover action arising under 11 U.S.C. § 542, it is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) which the bankruptcy court may both hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to collect a matured debt owed to the estate as a core turnover proceeding.

Kenston Management Co. v. Lisa Realty Co. (In Re Kenston Management Co.) · filed 1992-03-04(b)(2)(E)

Therefore, this turnover proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) in that the debt owed to the Debtor is a matured debt within the meaning of § 542(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to turn over estate property as a core proceeding, but labeling a complaint as one for turnover does not make it a turnover action.

McClatchey v. Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program (In Re Matheney) · filed 1992-03-24(b)(2)(E)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), an order to turn over property of the estate is a core proceeding. However, the mere characterization of an action as a complaint for turnover does not automatically mean that it is a turnover action as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats the sale of estate property as a core proceeding involving administration of the estate.

International Fidelity Insurance v. Robb (In Re Robb) · filed 1992-05-06(b)(2)(A)

Similarly, the sale of property of the estate involves the administration of the estate and is a core matter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to collect a matured debt that is property of the estate as a core turnover proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

United States v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Gulf Apparel Corp.) · filed 1992-06-01(b)(2)(E)

Hence, this action is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157, and the bankruptcy court had authority to enter a final order in the case.

An action to collect accounts receivable is a core proceeding as a turnover action under § 157(b)(2)(E).

Wilson Feed Co. v. Quality Seeding & Landscaping of Chesapeake, Inc. (In Re Wilson Feed Co.) · filed 1992-06-12(b)(2)(E)

Since this Court believes an action to recover accounts receivable to be a turnover action within the meaning of § 542(b), an action to collect accounts receivable is therefore a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a contract claim against a nondebtor a core turnover proceeding when the nondebtor owes the estate nothing and holds no estate property.

Silverman v. General Railway Signal Co. (In Re Leco Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1992-08-06(b)(2)(E)

First, the Court rejects the Trustee’s contention that General Railway’s suit against the City is a core, accounts receivable action, to “turn over property of the estate” under section 157(b)(2)(E). The Trustee’s position ignores the fact that the City has no liability to Leco and is not in possession of any property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats actions to turn over estate property as core proceedings.

Weinberg v. Boyle (In Re Weinberg) · filed 1993-04-06(b)(2)(E)

The unlimited “laundry list” in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) identifies a turnover action as a core proceeding that “arises in” or “arises under” a title 11 case.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a proceeding core merely because the debtor labels it a turnover action.

Ven-Mar International, Inc. v. Hancock (In Re Ven-Mar International, Inc.) · filed 1994-03-29(b)(2)(E)

The mere characterization of an action as one for turnover does not mean that it is a “turnover action” as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) permits a bankruptcy judge to order turnover of a matured debt owed to the estate when the debt has no nonbankruptcy defense other than setoff.

Shields v. Stangler (In Re Stangler) · filed 1995-09-14(b)(2)(E)

Rather, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and 11 U.S.C. § 542(b) should be interpreted to provide trustees with the bankruptcy remedy of turnover actions for debts, as property of bankruptcy estates, where: the debts are matured, payable on demand, or on order; and, where they are not subject to any non-bankruptcy defenses other than set off. ... Accordingly, the appropriate form of the judgments is in the nature of injunctive relief based on orders for turn over.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a turnover proceeding to bring property owned by the debtor into the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Nicholas v. Wright · filed 1997-02-20(b)(2)(E)

The proceeding before the bankruptcy court was an 11 U.S.C. § 542 turnover proceeding--that is, a proceeding used to effectuate the "turn over [of] property of the estate . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). The trustee instituted the turnover proceeding before the bankruptcy court in order to bring the Hi-Tech stock and certain assets owned by the debtor back into the bankruptcy estate. As such, it was a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not treat a claim involving a bona fide dispute over liability as a core turnover proceeding.

Dayton Title Agency, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance (In Re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.) · filed 2000-08-02(b)(2)(E)

When, instead, an adversary proceeding presents a bona fide dispute as to liability, the matter cannot be viewed as a turnover proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats turnover of estate property as a core proceeding, but determining whether the estate has a disputed prepetition property interest is not a core turnover proceeding.

Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Reynolds (In Re Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc.) · filed 2001-08-20(b)(2)(E)

Accordingly, insofar as the Debtor’s complaint seeks or requires a determination of the validity and extent of the Debtor’s prepetition rights in the trusts, it is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies matters concerning estate administration and turnover proceedings as core proceedings.

Wagner v. Amwest Insurance Group (In Re Amwest Insurance Group) · filed 2002-10-24(b)(2)(A), (E), (0)

This Court holds that mandatory abstention does not apply because this is a core matter in that the question at issue concerns the determination of what is property of the bankruptcy estate and is akin to a turnover proceeding concerning the administration of the estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (0); 11 U.S.C. § 541(a).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to collect an account receivable as a core proceeding.

French v. Philip Services Corp. (In Re Metropolitan Environmental, Inc.) · filed 2003-03-26(b)(2)(E)

An action to collect on an account receivable is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to collect an account receivable as a core proceeding.

French v. Superior Metal Products (In re Metropolitan Environmental, Inc.) · filed 2003-03-26(b)(2)(E)

An action to collect on an account' receivable is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to enforce a lien on estate proceeds as a core proceeding when success would require an order turning over estate property.

Edge Petroleum Operating Co. v. Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, L.L.C. · filed 2003-05-09(b)(2)(E)

Regardless, Edge is seeking to enforce its lien on the proceeds, which, if Edge prevails, would necessarily involve an order to turn over property of the Debtors’ estate — which falls under subsection (E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a proceeding to turn over estate property as a core proceeding.

Levine v. Telco Systems, Inc. (In Re World Access, Inc.) · filed 2005-04-22(b)(2)(E)

Core jurisdiction therefore lies over Counts I (turnover of property of the estate) and II (recovery of unauthorized postpetition transfer) under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (H).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a genuine turnover action as a core proceeding, but a claim seeking to establish liability for an unmatured contractual debt is non-core.

Smith v. McLeskey (In Re Bay Vista of Virginia, Inc.) · filed 2008-09-24(b)(2)(E)

Accordingly, assessing both form and substance of Count One, it appears the action asserted by the Trustee is not in the nature of a true “turnover” proceeding and is properly characterized as a “non-core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a claim a core turnover proceeding when ownership of the property is subject to significant dispute.

In Re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. Litigation · filed 2011-09-19(b)(2)(E)

These actions are subject to significant dispute, resolution of which will determine whether the funds redeemed are in fact property of the Funds’ estates. ... They are not core claims under section 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) classifies turnover proceedings as core proceedings, subject to the court's constitutional authority to enter a final determination.

Rentas v. Claudio (In Re Garcia) · filed 2012-03-26(b)(2)(E)

Turnover disputes are core proceedings pursuant to Section 157(b)(2)(E) of the Code of Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). Still, as previously discussed, that is not enough for this court to be able to issue a final determination on the controversy: “the question is whether the action at issue stems from the bankruptcy itself or would necessarily be resolved in the claims allowance process.”

Section 157 treats proceedings to turn over estate property as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment.

In re Ruhl · filed 2012-07-02(b)(2)(E)

The turnover of property to the trustee of a bankruptcy estate is a matter arising under § 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and is included in the list of core proceedings set out in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). The bankruptcy court is therefore authorized to enter a final judgment on the trustee’s motion.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) makes a turnover proceeding a core matter in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Zebley v. Hart (In re Hart) · filed 2012-09-26(b)(2)(E)

This is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), and the Court will enter final judgment in this adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a claim to collect a judgment from a third party’s property a core turnover proceeding when the property is not part of the bankruptcy estate.

Baum v. Baum · filed 2022-03-25(b)(2)(E)

The Plaintiff’s Claim No. 4 does not involve an “order to turn over property of the estate” within the meaning of § 157(b)(2)(E), nor can it be deemed a proceeding of the type described in § 157(b)(2)(O).

Section 157(b)(2) classifies the aspects of a proceeding that directly affect Chapter 12 debtor defendants as core proceedings.

Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore) · filed 2004-06-21(b)(2)

The aspects of this cause of action which directly affect the Chapter 12 debtor/defendants would be considered collectively a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (0).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine the effect of a prior claim allowance order as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment.

McAlpin v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re McAlpin) · filed 2000-10-26(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157, bankruptcy judges may enter final orders and judgments in matters that are “core proceedings.” ... Resolution of this adversary proceeding involves interpreting and ascertaining the effect of my previous order determining the allowed amount of defendant’s claim. The claim objection proceeding was a core proceeding. ... Therefore, I have jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding and may enter a final order or judgment.

Section 157 treats matters concerning estate administration and the allowance or disallowance of claims as core proceedings.

Tate v. NationsBanc Mortgage Corp. (In Re Tate) · filed 2000-10-02(b)(2)(A), (B)

The class claims necessarily implicate issues of estate administration and also expressly fall under the § 157 provision for the allowance/disallowance of claims. As a result, this class action is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats allowance or disallowance of a proof of claim as a core proceeding and permits the bankruptcy court to examine the agreement supporting that claim.

In Re Industries, Inc. · filed 2000-03-09(b)(2)(B)

The filing of a proof of claim is the prototypical situation involving the "allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate," a core proceeding under28 U.S.C. S 157(b)(2). ... By filing the proof of claim, Benedor voluntarily subjected the agreement to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction as well, because the agreement is an integral component of the bankruptcy court's consideration of Benedor's claim.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over the amount and validity of a creditor’s claim as a core proceeding, even when the adversary proceeding seeks money for the estate.

Noonan v. Fremont Financial (In Re Lappin Electric Co.) · filed 2000-02-29(b)(2)

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Although this is an adversary proceeding to recover money for the estate, the substance of the issue relates to the amount and validity of the creditor’s claim, which was paid during the pendency of the case.

Section 157 treats lender liability claims challenging a creditor’s claim against the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Chrysler v. Gen Elec Captl · filed 2000-01-12(b)(1)

Therefore, because the dealerships lender liability claims were challenges to a claim made against the estate during the bankruptcy proceeding, these lender liability claims were core proceedings for which the bankruptcy court did have jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the allowance or disallowance of claims as a core proceeding and permits the bankruptcy court to determine the amount of an allowable claim.

Eli Witt Co. v. Florida, Department of Business & Professional Regulation (In Re Eli Witt Co.) · filed 1999-08-27(b)(2)(B)

It cannot be gainsaid that the power to allow or disallow claims in a bankruptcy case is a “core” procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Concomitant with this power is the power of the bankruptcy court to determine the amount of all claims ultimately allowable in a given bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a patent infringement complaint seeking payment from the bankruptcy estate as a claim whose allowance or disallowance is a core proceeding.

In Re Cambridge Biotech Corporation Institut Pasteur and Genetic Systems Corporation v. Cambridge Biotech Corporation, D · filed 1999-07-07(b)(2)(B)

By filing what amounted to a proof of claim, appellants initiated the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate ...,” a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives bankruptcy judges core authority to resolve claims and objections to them.

Knox v. Sunstar Acceptance Corp. (In Re Knox) · filed 1999-06-01(b)(2)(B)

However, core jurisdiction certainly lies over resolution of claims and objections thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a creditor’s claim as a core proceeding when the creditor files a proof of claim and triggers the allowance and disallowance process.

Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1995-12-06(b)(2)(B)

At the time the district court rendered its decision, Benedor had filed a proof of claim thereby triggering the allowance and disallowance process in the bankruptcy court and converting its claim into a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes a creditor’s state law claim a core proceeding when the creditor files a proof of claim seeking its allowance.

Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enterprises · filed 1995-12-06(b)(2)(B)

In sum, we hold when Benedor filed a proof of claim, its state action became a core proceeding under Sec. 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a creditor’s claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may determine the debt’s validity.

Atassi v. McLaren · filed 1993-04-07(b)(2)(B)

A suit by a third party creditor, such as Atassi, against the debtor (and thus the bankruptcy estate) is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a trustee’s equitable subordination objection to a lien or claim as a core proceeding involving allowance or disallowance of claims.

Aetna Life Insurance v. Danbury Square Associates, Ltd. Partnership (In Re Danbury Square Associates, Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1993-02-19(b)(2)(B)

However, a trustee’s objection to a lien or claim bottomed on the concept of equitable subordination pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) does implicate the process of allowance or disallowance of claims which is expressly described as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a punitive damages claim against the estate as a core proceeding.

Lisk v. Criswell (In Re Criswell) · filed 1984-11-01(b)(2)(B)

The defendant does, however, dispute this Court’s jurisdiction to hear Count Five relating to a claim of $150,000 in punitive damages. ... Count Five of the plaintiffs’ complaint is a “claim” against the estate. Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives the Court jurisdiction to hear the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate .... ”

A motion to allow a priority administrative claim is a core bankruptcy proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B).

In Re Falwell Excavating Co., Inc. · filed 1985-03-05(b)(2)(B)

The Court finds that this is a core proceeding and properly before it. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats objections to proofs of claim as core proceedings that a referred bankruptcy judge may finally determine under § 157(b)(1).

In Re Windsor Communications Group, Inc. · filed 1985-01-22(b)(2)(B)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Thus, we may make a final determination of the issues raised by the instant proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) and the Order of Chief Judge Luongo of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, dated July 25, 1984, referring all cases under title 11 and all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11 to the Bankruptcy Judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 157(b)(1) treats claims arising from a debtor in possession’s postpetition operations as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

L.A. Clarke & Son, Inc. v. Bullock Construction, Inc. (In Re L.A. Clarke & Son, Inc.) · filed 1985-03-27(b)(1)

First, the general definitional language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) provides that a core proceeding is one “arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.” This proceeding “aris[es] in a case under title 11,” because the claim and counterclaim themselves arose “in [this] case under title 11.” All the operative events giving rise to the claim and counterclaim occurred during the period after the Debtor’s Chapter 11 petition was filed, while the Debtor was a Debtor-in-possession, and they all involved the activities of the Debtor as Debtor-in-possession, operating under the aegis of this Court’s protection and authority.

An adversary proceeding concerning a debtor’s fraud and diverted creditor funds is a core proceeding under § 157.

Cass v. Jones (In Re Jones) · filed 1985-06-25

This Adversary Proceeding is a “core proceeding” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b) treats disputes over accounts receivable as core proceedings on which bankruptcy judges may enter final orders.

Franklin Computer Corp. v. Harry Strauss & Sons, Inc. (In Re Franklin Computer Corp.) · filed 1985-06-26(b)

Quite simply we hold that disputes on accounts receivable are core matters within the meaning of § 157(b) thus allowing bankruptcy judges to enter final orders thereon.

Section 157(b)(2) classifies a request to allow an administrative expense as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

First State Bank v. Advisory Information & Management Systems, Inc. (In Re Advisory Information & Management Systems, In · filed 1985-06-27(b)(2)(A), (B)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (B).

Section 157 treats this debtor’s action to collect on promissory notes as a core proceeding.

Baldwin-United Corp. v. Thompson (In re Baldwin-United Corp.) · filed 1985-07-03(b)

2. The action is a “core” proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 treats a Chapter 13 plan confirmation dispute as a core proceeding.

In Re Langguth · filed 1985-08-07

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 treats an objection to a bankruptcy claim as a core proceeding.

In Re Horizon MacHine & Engineering Corp. · filed 1985-08-08

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 treats litigation over which competing claim against an estate should be allowed as a core proceeding, even when it is not presented as a claim objection.

McKenny v. McGraw (In Re Bell & Beckwith) · filed 1985-06-12(b)(2)(B)

Though not posited as objections to claims, the thrust of this case is to reach a determination as to which of the claims should be allowed, and which should not. Litigation which adjudicates those issues is clearly a “core proceeding” within the contemplation of 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of estate claims and estimation of claims for Chapter 11 plan confirmation as core proceedings.

In Re Vic Snyder, Inc. · filed 1985-06-28(b)(2)(B)

Core proceedings include allowance or disal-lowance of claims against the estate and estimation of claims for the purpose of confirming a plan under Chapter 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(M) treats a dispute over a debtor’s right to use a trade name that is estate property as a core proceeding.

Reilly v. Nettie Lee Shops of Bristol, Inc. (In Re Nettie Lee Shops of Bristol, Inc.) · filed 1985-07-25(b)(2)(M)

Accordingly, after mature consideration of the facts and circumstances, as well as the applicable law set forth herein, the Court concludes that the issue involves a core proceeding as to the Debtor’s use of property claimed as a matter of right by the Debtor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(M).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) classifies confirmation of plans as a core proceeding, subjecting the bankruptcy court’s factual findings to review for clear error.

In Re Sanabria · filed 1985-08-12(b)(2)(L)

Confirmation of plans is expressly included in the “core proceedings” of the bankruptcy court, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), and as such is subject to the clearly erroneous rule.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as a core proceeding.

Hauytin v. Grynberg · filed 1985-08-26(b)(2)(B)

The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) continue to recognize this doctrine. Additionally, these claims arise under 11 U.S.C. § 502 and arise in the Title 11 case in that resolution of the issues will impact upon property of the estate. I conclude that these are core proceedings arising under Title 11 and arising in the Title 11 case referred by the district court to this court.

Section 157 treats a proceeding to determine an administrative expense claim as a core proceeding.

In Re Roberts & Porter, Inc. · filed 1985-09-04

This cause constitutes a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order in a core proceeding, including an objection to a claim.

In Re Murray Bros., Inc. · filed 1985-09-12(b)

This proceeding is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K) and (O), in which this court may enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157 treats determining the allowance of claims against a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

In Re Continental Airlines, Inc. · filed 1985-09-26(b)(2)(B)

The process of determining the allowance of claims is of basic importance to the administration of a bankruptcy estate, In Re Towner Petroleum Co., 48 B.R. 182 (Bankruptcy, W.D.Okla., 1985), citing Garnder v. New Jersey, 329 U.S. 565, 67 S.Ct. 467, 91 L.Ed. 504 (1947) and is a core proceeding, as defined in The Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, P.L. 98-353, 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and (b)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 157 treats a trustee’s state-law contract action as a related non-core proceeding when the complaint does not plead a turnover claim.

McGraw v. Ayling (In Re Bell & Beckwith) · filed 1985-10-02(c)(1)

In its present form, this case is solely an action on a contract, and is, therefore, a related non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O) each provides a basis for a bankruptcy judge to resolve a dispute over the scope of an approved stipulation fixing an administrative claim against the estate.

Kranzdorf v. Alter (In re Fidelity America Financial Corp.) · filed 1985-10-18(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(O)

The essence of the controversy at bench is the scope of a stipulation approved by us which fixed the size of the administrative claim against the estate. We hold that § 157(b)(2)(A), (2)(B) and (2)(0) each provides us with an independent basis for resolving the matter at hand.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats this claim dispute as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may finally determine.

In Re Century Inns, Inc. · filed 1986-01-03(b)(2)(B)

This matter is a core proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Thus, this Court may make the final determination of the issues raised herein.

A dispute over whether a creditor’s claim should be recognized and paid is a core proceeding that the bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Fred Dent, Inc. · filed 1986-01-24(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11 referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments. This proceeding involves the question of whether a claim by The Travelers Insurance Company (hereinafter “Travelers”) should be recognized and paid by the trustee.

A motion to classify claims is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(C).

In Re DRW Property Co. 82 · filed 1986-01-24(b)(2)(C)

The instant motion to classify claims is a “core proceeding” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats litigation over an objected-to claim against the estate as a core proceeding.

Robinson v. Hinkley (In Re Hinkley) · filed 1986-02-26(b)(2)(B)

Since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to recover its claim against the estate, and the debtor exercised his right to object to that claim, the issue has been reduced to claim allowance litigation. As such, it is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding seeking allowance of a claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Corporacion De Servicios Medicos Hospitalarios De Fajardo v. Izquierdo Mora (In Re Corporacion De Servicios Medicos Hosp · filed 1986-04-15(b)(2)(B)

We also find that the action by the Department was in the nature of seeking “an allowance ... of a claim(s) against the estate....” 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(B), a type of action which Congress expressly provided that, “shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).”

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a creditor’s claim for finance charges as a core proceeding.

In re Felix Contracting Corp. · filed 1986-02-27(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims as a core proceeding, but arbitration of an underlying contract dispute does not itself decide whether a claim is allowed.

In Re Allen & Hein, Inc. · filed 1986-04-10(b)(2)(B)

Debtor misconstrues the nature of the relief to be granted in this case. The issue to be resolved at the arbitration proceedings is whether Color Unlimited is a controlled entity under the collective bargaining agreement between debtor and Union, and not whether a claim by Union will be allowed in debtor’s case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy court may issue a final order.

In Re GHR Energy Corp. · filed 1986-05-27(b)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court can properly issue a final order in this proceeding because Congress specifically provides that the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate ...” are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats proceedings to determine the dischargeability of a debt as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Sullivan v. Sullivan (In Re Sullivan) · filed 1986-06-20(b)(2)(I)

These are core proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats claims by nondebtors against a bankruptcy debtor as core proceedings.

J.F. Naylor & Co., Inc. v. Mechanical Sheet Metal, Inc. (In Re J.F. Naylor & Co., Inc.) · filed 1986-08-26(b)(2)(B)

Claims by any nondebtors against Naylor are determined to be core proceedings under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding to determine the allowance of a creditor’s claim as a core proceeding.

In Re Lamica Corp. · filed 1986-09-29(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Lipetzky v. Department of Revenue (In Re Lipetzky) · filed 1986-09-05(b)(2)(B)

This bankruptcy proceeding is likewise before this court upon referral from the district court pursuant to Section 157. Core proceedings include allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) classifies allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as a core proceeding.

In Re Sitzberger · filed 1986-09-26(b)(2)(B)

This proceed-mg is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) which provides that all core proceedings include ... “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats claims disputes as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may adjudicate.

In Re Goldblatt Bros., Inc. · filed 1986-09-24(b)(2)

1. This Court has core jurisdiction to adjudicate claims disputes under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats contested claims as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may adjudicate.

In Re the Bible Speaks · filed 1986-10-08(b)(2)(B)

Contested claims are so-called “core proceedings” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to creditors’ claims as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re National Service Lines, Inc. of New Jersey · filed 1986-12-09(b)(2)(B)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits a bankruptcy court to determine whether to allow a claim, but does not authorize it to characterize a claim as equity rather than debt.

Unsecured Creditors' Committees of Pacific Express, Inc. v. Pioneer Commercial Funding Corp. (In Re Pacific Express, Inc · filed 1986-12-24(b)(2)(B)

In addition, 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(B) provides that a bankruptcy court may determine the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.” ... While the Code supports the court’s ability to determine the amount and the allowance or disallowance of claims, those provisions do not provide for the characterization of claims as equity or debt.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a dispute over the allowance of a claim as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Banner Iron Works · filed 1987-01-28(b)(2)(B)

This is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), which the Court may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) authorizes bankruptcy courts to estimate claims or interests for the purpose of confirming a Chapter 11 plan.

Equity Management II Corp. v. Carroll Canyon Associates (In Re Carroll Canyon Associates) · filed 1987-01-22(b)(2)(B)

Bankruptcy Courts are granted the specific authority to estimate claims or interest for the purpose of confirming a Chapter 11 Plan. See 28 U.S.C., Section 157(b)(2)(B). The Bankruptcy Judge established the claim of EMC based upon the Debtor’s request that it be allowed to pay the settlement amount. Absent a proof of claim or objection by EMC to the Plan of Reorganization, the Bankruptcy Judge was eminently correct in his ruling.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) classifies the allowance or disallowance of claims as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Brandt-Airflex Corp. v. Long Island Trust Co. (In Re Brandt-Airflex Corp.) · filed 1987-02-06(b)(2)(B)

The allowance or disallowance of claims is definitively earmarked and enumerated as a core proceeding by title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (1986).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core matter in which the bankruptcy court may enter orders.

In Re Invader Corp. · filed 1987-03-17(b)(2)(B)

This Court finds that it has jurisdiction to enter appropriate orders in this matter as a core issue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(a) and (b)(2)(B).

Section 157 classifies the allowance of creditors’ claims and the determination of debtors’ counterclaims as core proceedings.

In Re Springer-Penguin, Inc. · filed 1987-06-10(b)(2)(B) and (C)

This subsection clearly does not apply because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (C) the allowances of claims filed by creditors and the determinations of counterclaims by debtors are classified as core matters and not related matters as required under subsection (c)(2).

Section 157 authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear proceedings concerning the allowance or disallowance of claims.

In re Mark Jay Kaufman, P.A. · filed 1987-08-10(a)

This Court has the “jurisdiction”, “authority”, and “power” to hear proceedings as to allowance or disallowance of all claims.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats claims by creditors against the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Izdebski v. Central Ice Cream Co. (In Re Central Ice Cream Co.) · filed 1987-12-31(b)(2)(B)

It is self-evident that section 157(b)(2)(B) speaks to claims of creditors against the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a claim against a debtor’s estate as a core proceeding.

The Bible Speaks v. Dovydenas · filed 1988-01-25(b)(2)(B)

Elizabeth Dovydenas’ claim against TBS is a classic claim against a debtor’s estate. Indeed, hers is the major claim against the debtor’s estate. As such, it is specifically listed by statute as an example of a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not treat a breach-of-contract claim with a bona fide dispute over liability as a core turnover proceeding.

Pryor v. Continental Insurance Co. (In Re Blue Point Carpet, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-02(b)(2)(E)

An action for breach of contract is not a core proceeding. Where there is present a bona fide dispute as to liability, it cannot be viewed as a turnover proceeding covered by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) or a core proceeding under any other subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a creditor’s claim as a core bankruptcy matter.

In re Criss · filed 1988-05-12(b)(2)(B)

This is a core matter under provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), with jurisdiction further conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and General Order No. 84 of this District.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding to determine the status of proofs of claim as a core proceeding.

In Re Tesmetges · filed 1988-06-08(b)(2)(B)

The court has jurisdiction of the subject matter as a core proceeding in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences as core proceedings.

Simon v. Engineered Protection Systems, Inc. (In Re Hatfield Electric Co.) · filed 1988-10-06(b)(2)(F)

Proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences are core proceedings pursuant to Section 157(b)(2)(F) of Title 28 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives the bankruptcy court jurisdiction to decide the allowance or disallowance of a punitive damages claim against the estate.

Cook v. Barnett (In Re Barnett) · filed 1988-12-12(b)(2)(B)

First, in addressing the jurisdictional issue, the Court notes that the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is a claim against the estate, the allowance or disal-lowance of which this Court has jurisdiction to hear under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes allowance or disallowance of claims against a debtor’s estate a core matter that a bankruptcy court may determine.

In Re Clark · filed 1989-02-27(b)(2)(B)

Since the present matter involves “allowance or disallowance of claims against” the Debtor’s estate, it is a core matter which can be determined by this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to recover preferential transfers as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Rafoth v. First National Bank of Barnesville (In Re Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 1989-03-15(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Inslaw, Inc. · filed 1989-03-13(b)(2)(B)

“The allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate” is a “core matter” within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

An objection to a creditor’s proof of claim is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B).

In Re Neptune World Wide Moving, Inc. · filed 1989-05-11(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding to allow an administrative claim as a core proceeding.

Matter of Riverside Nursing Home · filed 1989-06-01(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to hear and determine a trustee’s suit over postpetition misconduct against a debtor in possession as a core proceeding.

Umbreit v. Stump, Harvey & Cook, Inc. (In Re Baltimore Motor Coach Co.) · filed 1989-07-13(b)(1)

The instant complaint filed by the trustee in bankruptcy upon either a tort or contract theory against insurers for postpetition misconduct committed against a debtor while it was a debtor-in-possession under Chapter 11 protection is a core proceeding arising in a case under title 11 which bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats an objection to a creditor’s claim as a core proceeding.

In Re NTG Industries, Inc. · filed 1989-08-09(b)(2)(B)

This matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a matter concerning the allowance of a claim as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may determine on a final basis.

In Re Josephs · filed 1989-12-19(b)(2)(B)

Furthermore, as a matter concerning the allowance of a claim, this contested matter is a “core matter” which a bankruptcy judge may determine on a final basis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and General Local Rule 2.33.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) classifies the allowance of creditors’ claims as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Texas v. Texaco Inc. (In Re Texaco Inc.) · filed 1989-12-27(b)(2)(B)

Indeed, the allowances of claims filed by creditors are classified as core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the allowance or disallowance of claims as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In re Kessler Manufacturing Corp. · filed 1989-12-29(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding, as defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(B), in which this Court is authorized to hear and determine all matters related to this case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the allowance or disallowance of a claim as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Glassel v. Allegheny International Credit Corp. (In Re Allegheny International, Inc.) · filed 1990-01-08(b)(2)(B)

In the instant case, we find that the allowability of the Glassels’ claim is a core matter; the allowance or disallowance of a claim is identified as a core proceeding in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings to allow or disallow claims against a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In Re Manville Forest Products Corporation, Debtor. Gulf States Exploration Co. v. Manville Forest Products Corporation · filed 1990-02-07(b)(2)(B)

The adversary proceeding at issue here involves a simple objection to a proof of claim and clearly falls within the literal language of § 157(b)(2)(B), which provides that all proceedings involving the “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate” (other than proceedings involving “the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a case under title 11”) are core matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes allowance or disallowance of claims against a bankruptcy estate a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Comstock Financial Services, Inc. · filed 1990-03-01(b)(2)(B)

The final pertinent aspect of this statutory scheme of jurisdiction is subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. §157 which provides that bankruptcy judges may hear, determine and enter final orders with regard to all proceedings that are at the core of the bankruptcy system. Congress expressly includes the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estates in its list of core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding over a claimed property exemption as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Cullison · filed 1990-04-12(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Section 157 treats objections to claimed exemptions as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may decide, including when the objection challenges the constitutionality of a state exemption statute.

In Re Wines · filed 1990-04-16(b)(2)(B)

As to jurisdiction, this Court clearly has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d)(2)(B) of this core proceeding, and the Court cannot imagine anything more central to the granting of a “fresh start” to a debtor than its jurisdiction over exemption and discharge issues.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives the bankruptcy court authority to decide whether to allow or disallow claims against a debtor, which the court held precluded arbitration of this claim.

In Re Murray Industries, Inc. · filed 1990-04-03(b)(2)(B)

This record is clear, as noted earlier, that no arbitration ever occurred, no arbitration panel was ever empaneled, and none will be, simply because of the intervention of the bankruptcy case which gives this Court exclusive jurisdiction to pass on the allowance or disallowance of claims filed against debtors by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats orders concerning the disposition of exemptible property as core proceedings.

Hazard v. Overhead Door Co. of Madison, Inc. (In Re Hazard) · filed 1990-04-26(b)(2)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), orders concerning the disposition of exemptible property involve core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a proceeding to determine a debtor’s claimed exemption as a core proceeding.

In Re Ree · filed 1990-05-01(b)(2)(B)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), 11 U.S.C. § 522(b), (/).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings concerning the allowance of claims against the estate as core matters that bankruptcy judges may determine on a final basis after referral.

In Re Tripplett · filed 1990-07-12(b)(2)(B)

Proceedings concerning the allowance of claims against the estate are core matters which,' upon reference from the district court, bankruptcy judges may determine on a final basis.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding involving a cause of action arising during post-petition administration of a bankruptcy case as core.

Hiser v. Neumann Medical Center, Inc. (In Re St. Mary Hospital) · filed 1990-08-01(b)(2)(A)

Independently from these allegations and admissions, we observe that this proceeding is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it clearly relates to a cause of action which arose in the course of post-petition administration of the Debtor’s case.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not treat litigation to establish whether a claim exists as a core proceeding for allowance or disallowance of claims.

Christensen v. Tucson Estates · filed 1990-08-30(b)(2)(B)

The court first considered the case to be about allowance and disallowance of claims. See id. Sec. 157(b)(2)(B). This finding again confuses the tasks of determining whether the homeowners have a claim, and determining what to do with it in the bankruptcy if they do. The parties dispute not whether a claim should be disallowed but instead whether the plaintiffs have a claim to bring to the bankruptcy court in the first place.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) classifies the allowance and disallowance of claims as core proceedings.

Cameron v. J.T. Moran Financial Corp. (In Re J.T. Moran Financial Corp.) · filed 1990-09-05(b)(2)(B)

Because the process of determining allowed claims is classified as a core matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), mandatory abstention is inappropriate in such matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not classify a state-law claim against a nondebtor as a core proceeding when its connection to the bankruptcy estate is attenuated.

Taxel v. Electronic Sports Research (In re Cinematronics · filed 1990-10-22(b)(2)(A)

The catch-all section, 157(b)(2)(A), describes as core "matters concerning the administration of the estate." ... A judgment against Pierce would not directly determine or adjust the relationship of the Cinematronics estate to its creditors. Thus, the relationship of the claims to the reorganization proceedings are attenuated. We find no clear expression of congressional intent to include within the catch-all categories of core proceedings state claims that relate to a bankruptcy proceeding but that exist against a nondebtor.

A proceeding challenging a proof of claim against a debtor is a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Sciortino v. Mortgage Default Services, Inc. (In Re Sciortino) · filed 1990-10-24(b)(2)(B)

Insofar as this proceeding attacks a proof of claim filed against the Debtor, it is a core proceeding which we can both hear and determine. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and determine the liquidation of claims against estate property in Chapter 11, except personal injury or wrongful death claims.

In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. · filed 1990-11-14(b)(2)(B)

The bankruptcy court may determine the liquidation of claims against proceeds of such property, having authority to hear and determine core matters including, in chapter 11, the liquidation of claims other than personal injury or wrongful death claims, against property of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)'s catchall categories do not make a contract suit between nondebtors a core proceeding merely because its outcome affects the bankruptcy estate.

Blackburn v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Northern Ohio (In Re GF Corp.) · filed 1991-03-07(b)(2)(A), (O)

Therefore, this Court must conclude that the present proceeding is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157. Despite its impact on the bankruptcy estate, the essence of this proceeding is to recover from a non-debtor third-party on a breach of contract action. Such an action is clearly not at the core of the federal bankruptcy power, and this Court will not interpret the catchall provisions of the core proceeding provision so expansively so as to include it.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) does not make a proceeding core on the basis of claims allowance when the creditor has filed no proof of claim.

Wright v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Wright) · filed 1991-06-06(b)(2)(B)

This point is noted because the absence of a proof of claim of Mid-Penn places this proceeding outside the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), which rendered most of the other numerous proceedings in this court between CLS and Mid-Penn core.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats estimation of claims against the estate for Chapter 11 plan confirmation as a core proceeding.

Interco Inc. v. ILGWU National Retirement Fund (In Re Interco Inc.) · filed 1992-01-09(b)(2)(B)

For the purpose of confirmation of a plan under Chapter 11, Congress has clearly and specifically directed that estimation of claims against the estate is a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to determine the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate while a state court resolves marital property distribution.

In Re Claughton · filed 1992-04-27(b)(2)(B)

The Court will modify the stay to allow the Florida courts to make a final determination of the claims of the parties and a final distribution of the marital property as between the Debtor and his former spouse, although this Court will retain authority given it by the Bankruptcy Code and by 28 U.S.C. § 157 to determine the allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.

Section 157(b)(3) provides that a proceeding does not become non-core merely because resolving it requires applying state law.

In Re AWB Associates, G.P. · filed 1992-09-10(b)(3)

Camden’s position is incorrect for several reasons. Firstly, a matter is not rendered non-core simply because its resolution requires application of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats the allowance or disallowance of a claim as a core proceeding even when the claim is based on state law.

In re Bicoastal Corp. · filed 1993-08-13(b)(2)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), the allowance or disallowance of a claim is clearly a core matter and thus should be heard by the Bankruptcy Court, notwithstanding that the challenged claim is based on state law.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) gives bankruptcy courts authority to decide objections to claims against the estate, including whether an agreement underlying a claim is valid.

Davis v. Suderov (In Re Davis) · filed 1994-05-31(b)(2)(B)

The Bankruptcy Court has core jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) to consider objections to claims and the disallowance of claims against the debtors’ estate. Contrary to Suderov’s contention, the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to determine whether the Lease was unconscionable within the context of reviewing the Suderovs’ claim.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) excludes a decision on a state statute of limitations defense to a personal injury claim from core proceedings when that decision would effectively liquidate the claim for distribution.

In Re Schepps Food Stores, Inc. · filed 1994-06-30(b)(2)(B)

By the plain language of section 157(b)(2)(B), a decision on the limitations defense would not be a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) does not make a contested claim-allowance matter non-core merely because the claims arise under state law.

In re Jim Walter Resources · filed 1994-09-16(b)(3)

The reliance by the Movants on the cases cited are based on an oversimplification of the issues raised by the Motions under consideration and completely overlooks the fact that both claims filed by the Movants are challenged and there is no question that the allowance or disallowance of claims filed in a case under Title 11 is uniquely and exclusively within the competence of the bankruptcy court where the case is pending and the fact that the claims under consideration are based on state law is of no consequence. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats counterclaims that stand as proofs of claim as core proceedings when they involve allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate, whether the claims arose before or after the bankruptcy petition.

Peachtree Lane Associates, Ltd. v. Granader · filed 1994-11-18(b)(2)(B)

Briefly, however, the court finds that because the defendants’ counterclaims now stand as proof of claims in the bankruptcy court, the counterclaims constitute core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) because they ultimately involve the allowance and disallowance of claims against the estate. This is true of both the pre-petition counterclaims and the post-petition counterclaims.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of a debt as a core proceeding, but deciding whether the debt exists is non-core.

Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Conejo Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1994-11-16(b)(2)(B)

Simply stated, the existence of a debt and the allowance or disallowance of a debt are separate issues. The determination of whether a debt exists involves a non-core proceeding and whether to allow or disallow the debt after determining a debt exists involves a core proceeding arising under title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes the allowance or disallowance of a filed proof of claim a core proceeding, even when the claim arises from a prepetition state-law contract dispute.

In Re S.G. Phillips Constructors, Inc. · filed 1995-01-25(b)(2)(B)

Rather, we believe that the determinative factor as to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction in this case is that the City filed a proof of claim resulting in an adversary proceeding that involved the "allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(B). In so doing, the City necessarily became a party under the court's core jurisdiction.