28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over control of a debtor in possession as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate that the bankruptcy court may determine.

SCK Corp. v. Rosenblum (In Re SCK Corp.) · filed 1984-10-17(b)(2)(A)

A matter concerning the administration of the debtor’s estate is a core proceeding. § 157[b][2][A]. Since control of a debtor in possession goes to the very heart of the administration of the debtor’s estate, it necessarily follows that the bankruptcy court may properly determine where such control resides.

Section 157(b)(2)’s list of core proceedings is nonexclusive and includes an application for injunctive relief to protect the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Walsh v. Abrams (In Re HBG Servicenter, Inc.) · filed 1985-01-11(b)(2)

The specific enumeration of what are core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) is explicitly stated not to be exclusive. Evidently what was intended to be embraced were the traditional areas of bankruptcy jurisdiction. An application for injunctive relief to protect this Court’s jurisdiction is of this traditional character.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) presumptively treats proceedings affecting administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Baker v. Highland (In Re Salem Mortgage Co.) · filed 1985-01-16(b)(2)(O)

As to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, Congress has given an affirmative indication that proceedings affecting the administration of the estate under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(O) are presumed to be core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers the resolution of competing voluntary and involuntary bankruptcy petitions as a core proceeding.

In Re Westover Hills Ltd. · filed 1985-01-29(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats adversary proceedings to collect capital contributions from limited partners as core proceedings.

Lesser v. A-Z Associates (In Re Lion Capital Group) · filed 1985-02-12(b)(2)(O)

As literally written, moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), in its inclusion of proceedings affecting adjustment of the debtor-equity security holder relationship, confirms that Congress must have intended adversary proceedings to collect capital contributions from limited partners to be treated as core-proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats preservation of insurance needed for a chapter 11 reorganization as a matter concerning administration of the estate, allowing a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order.

Heaven Sent, Ltd. v. Centennial Insurance Co. (In Re Heaven Sent, Ltd.) · filed 1985-06-28(b)(2)(A)

We hold that the question of preservation of insurance in a chapter 11 proceeding is directly related to the administration of the estate under § 157(b)(2)(A), thus giving us jurisdiction to enter a final order on the action before us.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a constructive trust action concerning estate administration or the debtor-creditor relationship as a core proceeding.

In Re Richmond Children's Center, Inc. · filed 1985-05-14(b)

This action commenced by the City of Yonkers for the imposition of a constructive trust is akin to a matter concerning the administration of the estate or an adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship, both examples of core proceedings which this court may hear and determine by the entry of a dispositive order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a complaint seeking to preserve the reorganization process as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Manville Corp. v. Equity Security Holders Committee (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.) · filed 1985-09-20(b)(2)(A)

Plainly the subject matter of the Man-ville complaint is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) over which this Court has jurisdiction. The Manville complaint seeks to preserve the reorganization process as a whole. Pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A), the complaint encompasses “[mjatters concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to render a final decision on an injunction proceeding that is core because it affects administration of the debtor’s estate.

Rustic Manufacturing, Inc. v. Marine Bank Dane County (In Re Rustic Manufacturing, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-18(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

It is clear from the analysis above that Rustic’s suit is a core proceeding in which this court may render a final decision under section 157.

Section 157(b)(1) allows bankruptcy judges to hear civil contempt proceedings enforcing the automatic stay as core proceedings.

Better Homes of Virginia, Inc. v. Budget Service Co. (In Re Better Homes of Virginia, Inc.) · filed 1985-08-23(b)(1)

This limitation was not intended to exclude civil contempt actions from the Bankruptcy Court’s authority.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s motion to reject license agreements as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Chipwich, Inc. · filed 1985-10-24(b)(2)(A)

The debtor’s motion to reject the two licenses with Farmland is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) “concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion to assume a lease as a core proceeding when the lease is inseparable from the debtor’s reorganization.

Harley Hotels, Inc. v. Rain's International, Ltd. · filed 1985-11-15(b)(2)

Still, we find that, given the inseparability of this claim from the reorganization petition itself, the Motion to Assume Executory Contract must be denominated as a core proceeding under Section 157(b)(2)(B), (G), (M) and (0).

Section 157 treats actions to assume or reject executory contracts as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate, which bankruptcy judges may finally decide.

Matter of Republic Oil Corp. · filed 1985-11-25(b)(2)(A)

This court has jurisdiction to render a final decision in the instant action. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) allows bankruptcy judges to hear and determine “all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11_” Core proceedings include matters concerning the administration of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Actions to assume or reject executory contracts are “matters concerning the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(1) allows a bankruptcy judge to decide a motion to change venue of a bankruptcy case and enter the resulting order.

In Re Leonard · filed 1985-10-22(b)(1)

The undersigned Bankruptcy Judge construes this convoluted language to mean that he, as a “unit of” and a “judicial officer of” the “district court,” who is “known as the bankruptcy court,” can “hear and determine” and can “enter an appropriate order” with respect to the motion for change of venue. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy judges to enter appropriate orders only to carry out the Bankruptcy Code, as limited by 11 U.S.C. § 105.

Tele-Wire Supply Corp. v. Presidential Financial Corp. (In Re Industrial Tool Distributors, Inc.) · filed 1985-12-03(b)(1)

The power of the bankruptcy court to enter “appropriate” orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1) is, of course, restricted by 11 U.S.C. § 105 to orders appropriate to carrying out the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to abstain from and dismiss an entire bankruptcy case under 11 U.S.C. § 305 as a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may decide.

In Re Nexus Communications, Inc. · filed 1985-12-05(b)(2)(A)

There is no limitation in chapter 6 of title 28 to the bankruptcy judge’s power to enter final orders concerning motions to abstain under 11 U.S.C. § 305. Accordingly, the court concludes that the motion to abstain pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305 is a core proceeding which this court may hear and determine. (28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and 157(b)(1)).

Section 157 treats administration of a debtor’s estate as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Matter of Glaubinger MacHinery Co., Inc. · filed 1986-01-23(b)(2)(A)

The instant matter concerns the administration of the debtor’s estate and is unquestionably a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157[b][2][A]. This Court is thus empowered to hear and determine the issues at hand. 28 U.S.C. § 157[b][l].

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning estate administration and recovery of estate property as core proceedings.

Peck v. Hornsby (In Re S.E. Hornsby & Sons Sand & Gravel Co.) · filed 1986-01-24(b)(2)(A), (E)

The Court ruled that this is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(2)(A) and (E) since it deals with administration of the estate and regaining property of the estate and since control and possession of the property is central and core to any proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to convert a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 as a core proceeding.

In Re Greene · filed 1986-01-28(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157 does not require a bankruptcy court to submit recommendations to the district court when deciding an abstention issue; the bankruptcy court may enter a dispositive order while the reference remains in place.

Baumgartner v. Baumgartner (In Re Baumgartner) · filed 1986-01-14(c)

While it is true that the Bankruptcy Court must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court in non-core proceedings, see, 28 U.S.C. Section 157(c), it should be noted that this is a procedure which is specifically set forth by the statute and which is limited to non-core proceedings. ... Therefore, it must be concluded that the Bankruptcy Court is not required to submit recommendations to the District Court on matters of abstention, and that it may enter dispositive orders on such issues when they are raised.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) permits substantive consolidation to be classified as a core proceeding affecting liquidation of estate assets.

Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Langenkamp (In Re Tureaud) · filed 1986-01-14(b)(2)(O)

In any event, this Court concludes that a consolidation may be characterized as a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) which provides in pertinent part that core proceedings include, but are not limited to “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate-” Consequently, the Bankruptcy Court’s Order regarding this core proceeding shall be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard as to findings of fact and the de novo standard as to conclusions of law.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter an order on a motion to change venue because the motion is a core proceeding.

In Re Oceanquest Feeder Service, Inc. · filed 1986-01-22(b)(1)

Accordingly, having decided that a motion to change venue is a core proceeding, for the same policy reasons that permit a bankruptcy judge to hear those motions, I conclude that I may enter an appropriate order.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to decide whether an estate may pursue a lawsuit when the matter is a core proceeding involving estate administration, a counterclaim, plan confirmation, or liquidation of estate assets.

Holywell Corp. v. Bank of New York · filed 1986-03-20(b)(2)(A), (C), (L), and (O)

The Bankruptcy Court was within the scope of its authority in making this determination, as the debtors’ right to pursue this action was a matter concerning the administration of the estates, and/or a counterclaim by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate, and/or confirmations of Plans, and/or other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate, etc., and therefore constituted a “core proceeding”. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (C), (L), and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action to enjoin outside litigation that would hinder administration of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Manville Corp. v. Equity Security Holders' Committee (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.) · filed 1986-04-30(b)(2)(A)

The first of the enumerated categories is “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(1), (2)(A) (West Supp.1986). ... This includes the adjudication of actions to enjoin non-bankruptcy proceedings that would inhibit the administration of the bankrupt estate. ... This is such a proceeding.

An agreement approved by the bankruptcy court that is essential to a debtor’s reorganization can make a dispute over that agreement a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Franklin Computer Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (In Re Franklin Computer Corp.) · filed 1986-05-21(b)(2)(A)

As such, this dispute is inextricably interwoven with the administration of the estate and, hence, the proceeding is a core matter under § 157(b)(2)(A).

A motion to reject a collective bargaining agreement is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A).

In Re Salt Creek Freightways · filed 1985-03-28(b)(2)(A)

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

A debtor’s motion to reject a collective bargaining agreement is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A).

In Re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. · filed 1985-10-22(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (D) classifies a debtor’s motion for authority to incur debt and grant security as a core proceeding.

In re Hawkins · filed 1985-12-30(b)(2)(A) and (D)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (D).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to remand or abstain as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Marine Bank Appleton, N.A. v. Mill-Craft Building Systems, Inc. (In Re Mill-Craft Building Systems, Inc.) · filed 1986-02-13(b)(2)(A)

However, a motion to remand or abstain presents an entirely separate matter. It is a core proceeding because it involves a matter concerning the administration of the estate under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats abstention as a core matter concerning administration of the estate, allowing a bankruptcy court to order mandatory abstention.

Allied Mechanical & Plumbing Corp. v. Dynamic Hostels Housing Development Fund Co. · filed 1986-07-07(b)(2)(A)

Accordingly, the bankruptcy court has the authority to comply with the mandatory abstention requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) because abstention involves a matter concerning the administration of the estate and is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to treat a request to enjoin another action as a core proceeding when that action may undo the debtor’s rehabilitation.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · filed 1986-09-10(b)(2)(A)

And in our view, if the bankruptcy court may ever use its equitable powers under section 105(a) to enjoin actions pursued in other courts as "concerning the administration of the estate" under section 157(b)(2)(A), it may exercise that power where there is a basis for concluding that rehabilitation, the very purpose for the bankruptcy proceedings, might be undone by the other action. We therefore conclude that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to treat a request to enjoin another action as a core proceeding when that action may undermine the debtor’s rehabilitation.

Manville Corp. v. Equity Security Holders Committee (In re Johns-Manville Corp.) · filed 1986-09-10(b)(2)(A)

And in our view, if the bankruptcy court may ever use its equitable powers under section 105(a) to enjoin actions pursued in other courts as “concerning the administration of the estate” under section 157(b)(2)(A), it may exercise that power where there is a basis for concluding that rehabilitation, the very purpose for the bankruptcy proceedings, might be undone by the other action. We therefore conclude that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

A motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee is a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate under § 157(b)(2)(A).

In Re Cohoes Industrial Terminal, Inc. · filed 1986-10-10(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(2)(A) concerning the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats claims against court-appointed officers that are closely tied to a confirmed Chapter 11 plan as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate.

Canadian Shield Financial Corp. v. Estate of Deutscher (In Re Vincent) · filed 1987-01-12(b)(2)(A)

Thus, this claim is sufficiently related to the congressional scheme of bankruptcy administration that it is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a Chapter 11 proceeding to appoint an operating trustee as a core proceeding.

In Re Gems N' Things Inc. · filed 1986-04-25(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2) includes proceedings concerning estate administration and proceedings affecting the adjustment of debtor-creditor relationships among core proceedings.

Campbell Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (In Re Campbell Enterprises, · filed 1986-06-04(b)(2)

The matter presently before this court is a “core” proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) defines “core proceedings” to include “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0) includes as core proceedings, “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims.”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats appointment of a committee representing a bankrupt company’s equity stockholders as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Albero v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.) · filed 1986-11-20(b)(2)(A)

A “core proceeding” includes “matters concerning the administration of the estate”. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The appointment of a committee to represent the equity stockholders of a bankrupt company falls within this category.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action seeking an injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) as a core proceeding.

In Re Monroe Well Service, Inc. · filed 1986-12-03(b)(2)(A)

On this authority, I hold that this action is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to convert a Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 as a core proceeding.

In Re D & F Meat Corp. · filed 1986-12-15(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b) treats motions to convert a bankruptcy case from one chapter to another as core proceedings.

In Re Erickson Partnership · filed 1987-01-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Motions to convert a case from one chapter to a case under another chapter are clearly “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (2).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to order a change of venue because a venue motion is a core proceeding.

In Re D'Angona · filed 1987-02-13(b)(1)

A motion for change of venue is a “core proceeding,” ... under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), a bankruptcy ... court may enter an appropriate order, which includes an order for change of venue.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action to recover postpetition accounts receivable as a core proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case.

Sywilok v. Estee Lauder, Inc. (In Re Epi-Scan, Inc.) · filed 1987-04-06(b)(2)(A)

(1) The Dyson (postpetition) action is a core proceeding “arising in” a case under Title 11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and as such is one in which this Court may hear and enter final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats motions to assume or reject leases and executory contracts as core proceedings concerning administration of the estate.

In Re New York Deli, Ltd. · filed 1987-05-29(b)(2)(A)

It is clear that motions to assume or reject leases and executory contracts are “matters concerning the administration of the estate” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and thus a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats motions to change bankruptcy venue as core matters concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Ofia Realty Corp. · filed 1987-06-10(b)(2)(A)

These motions to change venue constitute core matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a claim challenging the management of bankruptcy estate assets as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Hershman v. Thorne (In Re Stockert Flying Service, Inc.) · filed 1987-06-22(b)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy judge determined that the state law claim fell under a listed “core proceeding” as a “matter concerning the administration of the estate”, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) or alternatively (0). This court agrees that the alleged state law cáuse of action in this case is inextricably linked to the bankruptcy estate as a core matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor's request for a labor injunction concerning administration of the estate as a core proceeding on which the bankruptcy court may enter a final order.

Elsinore Shore Associates v. Local 54, Hotel Employees And Restaurant Employees International Union · filed 1987-06-25(b)(2)(A)

This request for a Boys Markets injunction was a "matter[ ] concerning the administration of the estate," and therefore was a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(A) (Supp. II 1984). Thus, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enter a final order on Elsinore's petition for Boys Markets injunctive relief.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not make a benefits suit against a separate employee benefit plan a core proceeding concerning administration of the employer’s bankruptcy estate.

Holloway v. HECI Exploration Co. Employees' Profit Sharing Plan · filed 1987-08-10(b)(2)(A)

The adversary proceeding does not involve the administration of the HECI bankruptcy estate within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A); it involves the Plan, a separate legal entity.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats review of debtor’s counsel fees, including disclosure and disgorgement, as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Anderson · filed 1987-11-05(b)(2)(A)

This process of disclosure and disgorgement involves the administration of the estate which is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to dismiss a Chapter 12 case over debtor eligibility as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Schaurer Agricultural Enterprises · filed 1988-02-08(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), matters concerning the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats estate administration as a core proceeding, but that jurisdiction does not authorize a release of non-debtor third parties.

In Re Elsinore Shore Associates · filed 1988-03-24(b)(2)(A)

The Manville court properly invoked jurisdiction because the matter was a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). To extend this jurisdiction over non-debtor third parties by granting a release, regardless of its effect on the administration, is beyond this court’s jurisdiction grant of authority.

Section 157(b)(2) treats determinations concerning a contract that is the debtor’s only significant asset as core proceedings.

In Re a & D Care, Inc. · filed 1988-09-06(b)(2)(A), (G), (M), (O)

As the contract is Debtor’s only asset, save some nominal furnishings, it is not only intimately connected with the estate, it is the estate. Therefore, any determination relating to the contract must be “core”.

Section 157(b)(2) makes a proceeding to assume or reject personal service contracts core when it concerns administration of the estate and is essential to a Chapter 11 plan.

Matter of Taylor · filed 1988-09-14(b)(2)

Inasmuch as this Court has found that it has jurisdiction to allow the debtor to assume or reject the personal service recording and publishing contracts before the Court, this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) finds that the within matter is a core proceeding. The within matter certainly deals with the administration of the estate and is essential to the debtor’s ability to move forward with a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding seeking an injunction to protect the debtor’s reorganization as a core matter concerning administration of the estate, which the bankruptcy judge may decide.

Stadium Management Corp. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., N.A. (In Re Stadium Management Corp.) · filed 1988-11-14(b)(2)(A)

Because SMC filed its complaint seeking an injunction to protect its reorganizational process, however, the proceeding below was a “core” proceeding as a matter concerning the administration of the estate within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and the Bankruptcy Court judge acted well within his authority by entering the order in this case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) make an action core to the extent a judgment would determine debtor’s counsel’s administration of the estate or an unapproved professional’s right to fees or commissions.

Mangun v. Bartlett (In Re Balboa Improvements, Ltd.) · filed 1989-05-30(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The action is core to the extent any judgment would determine the proper administration of the estate by debtor’s counsel or the right to professional fees or commissions by an unapproved professional, by virtue of either 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), “matters concerning the administration of the estate” or 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0), “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action to enjoin enforcement of a judgment against a bankruptcy trustee personally as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

Read v. Duck (In Re Jacksen) · filed 1989-09-27(b)(2)(A)

An action enjoining the Reads from attempting to enforce a judgment against the trustee personally is, by its nature, a “matter concerning the administration of the estate” and therefore, was a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute that directly affects administration of a reorganization as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots Ass'n, International (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.) · filed 1989-10-04(b)(2)(A)

The issues raised in ALPA’s Complaint go right to the heart of a core matter involving the administration of this reorganization and is thus subject to the jurisdiction of this Court which has exclusive jurisdiction over the administration and assets of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats referred lien avoidance motions concerning estate administration as core matters that a bankruptcy judge may finally determine.

In Re Rosol · filed 1989-12-06(b)(2)(A)

Furthermore, because they concern the administration of the estate, these motions are “core matters” which, upon reference, a bankruptcy judge may determine on a final basis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers objections to interim attorney-fee applications for a trustee’s counsel as core proceedings.

In Re Gary Fairbanks, Inc. · filed 1990-02-02(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(A) includes matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate among core proceedings.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Rolleston (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.) · filed 1990-03-14(b)(2)(A)

The instant Rolleston Adversary Proceeding is a “core” proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action to recover funds that directly affect administration of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Pollner v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Harbor Park Associates Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1990-04-04(b)(2)(A)

The relevant provision at issue here is § 157(b)(2)(A). That section provides that core proceedings include “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” The controversy now before the Court fits squarely within the wording of the statute. The pending action seeks to recover a substantial amount of funds which were allegedly fraudulently obtained from the accounts of the most significant asset of the debtor, Harbor Park. Therefore, the issues involved in the instant action concern the recovery of assets which directly influence the effective administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding central to administering a debtor’s estate as a core proceeding.

Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp. (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.) · filed 1990-04-13(b)(2)(A)

Therefore, this is a “core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and, accordingly, it is not subject to the mandatory abstention provision of 28 U.S.C. ■§ 1334(c)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a dispute over the debtor’s interest in a lease when the lease is central to reorganization and the dispute concerns estate administration.

Paul Ruth Trading Co. v. Royal Yarn Dyeing Corp. (In Re Royal Yarn Dyeing Corp.) · filed 1990-05-29(b)(2)(A)

Inasmuch as the subject lease is virtually the sole asset of the Debtor, is necessary to an effective reorganization, and the issue before this Court concerns itself with the administration of the estate, particularly the Debtor’s interest arising out of the lease, this Court finds it has jurisdiction to hear this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a proceeding affecting administration of the bankruptcy estate as core, allowing a bankruptcy judge to enter final orders.

In Re McDonald Bros. Construction, Inc. · filed 1990-06-11(b)(2)(A)

Because treatment of the retainer affects the administration of the estate, it is a core proceeding, as to which a bankruptcy judge may enter final orders.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers veil-piercing and fraudulent-conveyance claims that concern administration of the estate.

Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp. · filed 1990-07-11(b)(2)(A)

It appears to this Court that the substance of the veil piercing and fraudulent conveyance claims concerns the administration of the estate, and thus must be termed core proceedings pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding affecting administration of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

AP Industries, Inc. v. SN Phelps (In Re AP Industries, Inc.) · filed 1990-07-26(b)(2)(A)

The instant Adversary Proceeding, which involves matters that impacts both on the administration and property of this estate, is a core proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to transfer a related debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Portjeff Development Corp. · filed 1990-08-24(b)(2)(A)

Such a motion is a core proceeding “concerning the administration of the estate” (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)) which may be heard by the bankruptcy court pursuant to the district court’s order of reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Baskin v. Wade (In Re Brenner) · filed 1990-10-16(b)(2)(A)

Rather, it is a proceeding which arose “concerning administration of the estate” of the Debtors, and therefore squarely falls within the scope of core proceedings defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a dispute whose effects on administration of the bankruptcy estate are sufficiently important to justify bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc. · filed 1990-12-21(b)(2)(A)

Although this dispute involves an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement, rather than an alleged breach of the post-petition contract, the ramifications of the dispute on the administration of the estate are of sufficient importance to justify bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers an action to enforce a bankruptcy court’s prior order as a core matter concerning administration of the estate.

Williams v. Stefan (In Re L & S Industries, Inc.) · filed 1991-01-09(b)(2)(A)

The Court has core jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). This is an action to enforce a previous Order of the Court and as such constitutes a matter concerning administration of the estate within the meaning of § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treats disputes over estate funds used to pay an attorney as core proceedings when they concern estate administration or affect distribution to creditors.

Willis v. Cruse (In Re Samford) · filed 1991-03-20(b)(2)(A) and (O)

In short, the Bankruptcy Court properly found that fees paid by debtors to appellant were part of the estate—certainly related to the administration of the estate. There is no question, then, that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction over the estate money that was ultimately paid by the debtors to the appellant.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning the administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Scheffel v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance (In Re Lehal Realty Associates) · filed 1991-10-23(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because the Chapter 11 trustee’s post-petition payment of the Gains Tax under protest occurred in the course of his administration of the estate and the instant question concerns the administration of the estate in that the debtor’s sale of the real estate could not have been recorded unless the Gains Tax was paid.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a determination of whether assets belong to the bankruptcy estate as a core matter concerning estate administration.

Bank of Los Angeles v. Official PACA Creditors' Committee (In Re Southland + Keystone) · filed 1991-10-25(b)(2)(A)

First, that PACA proceeds are not property of the estate does not mean the bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to make that determination. Under Appellant’s reasoning, any bankruptcy court order determining that assets are not property of a bankruptcy estate would be of no effect because the court would not have had jurisdiction to enter the order. Clearly, a determination of whether assets are property of a bankruptcy estate concerns administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a debtor’s contract claim as a core proceeding when its recovery would affect administration of the estate.

Orion Pictures Corp. v. Showtime Networks, Inc. (In Re Orion Pictures Corp.) · filed 1992-04-13(b)(2)(A)

Orion’s recovery of a sum that large could do nothing but affect the administration and liquidation of the estate. ... Accordingly, this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding within the plain meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a claim alleging misconduct by a trustee in administering the debtor’s estate as a core proceeding.

Fairway Investments Trust, Ltd. v. Wright (In Re American Solar King) · filed 1992-06-02(b)(2)(A)

For reasons set forth later in this Memorandum, this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) includes disputes over a standing chapter 13 trustee’s expenses among core proceedings when they directly affect estate administration.

In Re Myers · filed 1992-11-13(b)(2)(A)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), “core” proceedings include “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” The present issue directly affects the administration of estates, as previously mentioned. Whether § 157(b)(2)(A) was intended to apply in this context is uncertain. However, as will be discussed next, Congressional intent indicates that the bankruptcy court was not intended to be removed from determinations such as these. Thus, the court concludes this is a core matter under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers matters integral to administering the bankruptcy estate; a claim to recover on an insurance policy obtained after plan confirmation is not such a matter.

Bernheim v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada · filed 1993-10-26(b)(2)(A)

Under Section 157(b)(2)(A), matters concerning the administration of the estate are core proceedings. ... This action to recover on an insurance policy is not an essential or integral part of administering the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers disputes about the terms of an assumed lease as core proceedings concerning estate administration.

Transicoil, Inc. v. Blue Dove Development Associates (In Re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.) · filed 1993-11-16(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding arising under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). ... It follows that disputes about the circumstances of assumption and the provisions of the assumed lease likewise are matters of case administration.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate; claims involving property outside the estate are not core proceedings under that provision.

IN RE: The Guild and Gallery Plus, Inc. v. Maggio · filed 1996-01-04(b)(2)(A)

Since the Summertime painting was not part of the bankrupt estate, then a fortiori this matter cannot fall within § 157(b)(2)(A), which can only be applied to matters concerning the administration of the bankrupt estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A)’s category of matters concerning estate administration covers managerial matters incident to bankruptcy case management that are peculiarly within the bankruptcy court’s province.

Walker v. Commercial Credit Corp. · filed 1996-02-02(b)(2)(A)

Defendants specifically cite only 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” That section, however, merely refers to those managerial matters incident to case management which are peculiarly within the province of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over an employer’s fee for administering a Chapter 13 wage withholding order as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

United States v. Santoro · filed 1997-02-11(b)(2)(A)

While the fee did not, in fact, affect the administration of the estate in the manner alleged by the trustee at the stage in the proceedings when the motion was made, the Court finds that the fee still concerned the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats disposition of estate property as a core proceeding, allowing the bankruptcy court to determine claims affecting the value of the debtor’s equity interest.

In Re Moses · filed 1998-09-09(b)(2)(A)

In this case, the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling on the settlement motion was a matter “concerning the administration of the estate” because it dealt specifically with the disposition of the property of the estate. It is undisputed that the stock of IRM was owned solely by the Trustee, as successor-in-interest to the Debtor, subject only to the bona fide claims of IRM creditors. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court necessarily had jurisdiction to determine whether such claims existed, and jurisdiction to determine the value of the Debtor’s equity interest.

A debtor’s pre-petition contract claim does not become a core proceeding concerning estate administration merely because its recovery would benefit the estate.

Tultex Corp. v. Freeze Kids, L.L.C. · filed 2000-06-30(b)(2)(A)

Accordingly, and consistent with those decisions, Tultex’s contract claim is not a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a request to sell property of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Smith Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Premier Hotel Development Group (In Re Premier Hotel Development Group) · filed 2001-11-02(b)(2)(A)

A requested sale of property of the estate is a core proceeding because it is a “matter concerning the administration of the estate.”

A proceeding to enforce a bankruptcy court’s discharge injunction is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(O).

In Re Loving · filed 2001-11-19(b)(2)(O)

The basis for this jurisdiction has been articulated in one of several ways, but this Court finds the Fifth Circuit’s explanation to be particularly compelling: ... A proceeding to enforce the discharge injunction is a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2)(0) of title 28, and courts should readily reopen a closed bankruptcy case to ensure that the essential purposes of discharge are not undermined. ... Given the ample support to be found in both bankruptcy case law and commentary, the Court rejects ECMC’s argument that it lacks jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may finally decide.

In Re Tri-City Health Centre, Inc. · filed 2002-08-14(b)(2)(A)

The determination of the expenses of administering a bankruptcy estate constitutes a core matter over which this court has jurisdiction to enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and 1334.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Haney · filed 2002-09-23(b)(2)(A)

The Motion is a contested matter and a core proceeding, which this court may hear and determine under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) places a complaint disputing a debtor’s liability on a claim and seeking joint liability from insiders within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction when it concerns the listed categories of bankruptcy proceedings.

National City Bank v. Lapides (In Re Transcolor Corp.) · filed 2003-06-13(b)(2)

Therefore, in at least six respects, the complaint fits within the scope of the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court because it is based upon (1) matters concerning the administration of the estate, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A); ... affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

A dispute over the existence of a debtor’s principal assets and contracts is a core proceeding under § 157(b) when resolving it is essential to administering the bankruptcy case.

Brown v. Shepherd (In Re Lorax Corp.) · filed 2003-06-27(b)(1)

With due deference to those courts that have found the determination of the existence or nonexistence of an executory contract to be merely “related to” a case under the Code, this court concludes that the issues raised in the Fort Worth Suit are “core” proceedings with respect to Debtor’s chapter 11 case. Any issue so central to a case under the Code that to deprive the bankruptcy court of the power to adjudicate it would eviscerate the court’s section 1334(a) jurisdiction must be, by its very nature, a core proceeding.

An injunction connected to estate administration may have an arguable basis as a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2), even when related claims arise under state law.

Central Vermont Public Service Corporation v. Harold Herbert and Edith Herbert · filed 2003-08-21(b)(2)

The distinction between core and non-core is somewhat subjective and contextual, and we need not determine whether the injunction in this case was actually part of a core proceeding, because the issue before us is only whether the bankruptcy court arguably had jurisdiction. Here we conclude that the proceeding was arguably core.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a complaint about a paid bankruptcy professional’s misconduct as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

McDow v. We the People Forms & Service Centers, Inc. (In Re Douglas) · filed 2003-09-23(b)(2)(A)

The instant complaint is certainly a “matter concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). There can be no more fundamental exercise of core subject matter jurisdiction by the bankruptcy court than its policing of professionals whom debtors pay to render service in connection with their cases.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an objection to including property in the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Estate Partners, Ltd. v. Budzak (In Re Estate Partners, Ltd.) · filed 2005-01-31(b)(2)(A)

The W/B Guarantors’ objection to their inclusion in the bankruptcy estate is a question dealing with the administration of the estate, making this a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to determine whether a creditor violated bankruptcy court orders as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Berg · filed 2007-09-26(b)(2)(A)

A motion for determination if a creditor is in contempt of court orders is a matter concerning administration of the estate which is a core proceeding which this Court may hear and determine as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to determine what property comprises the debtor’s estate as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

In Re Mercher's Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2008-05-08(b)(2)(A)

This court is of the opinion that determining what, if anything, comprises the debtor’s estate is central to the administration of the bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings, so a court must await the bankruptcy court’s determination that a disputed asset is outside the estate before granting injunctive relief concerning it.

Total Petroleum Puerto Rico Corp. v. Figueroa · filed 2009-07-27(b)(2)(A)

Since that court is tasked with “matters concerning the administration of the estate” as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), this court cannot grant injunctive relief regarding an asset which may fall within the administration of the estate until it is correctly excluded from the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to determine whether property belongs to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

Endeavour GP, LLC v. Endeavour Highrise, L.P. (In Re Endeavour Highrise, L.P.) · filed 2010-07-13(b)(2)(A)

Section 157(b)(2)(A) provides that proceedings concerning the administration of the estate are core proceedings. The action by the Trustee, seeking a declaratory judgment that title to the Deposits resides with the bankruptcy estate, constitutes a proceeding concerning the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings concerning administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In Re Royce Homes, LP · filed 2011-03-11(b)(2)(A)

This dispute between the Trustee and Speer is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it concerns the administration of the Debtor’s Chapter 7 estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In Re K-Ram, Inc. · filed 2011-03-22(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of a debtor’s estate as core proceedings.

In Re Somers · filed 2011-05-04(b)(2)(A)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because the issue concerns the administration of the Debtors’ estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats claims arising from an unsecured creditors committee chair’s alleged misconduct in administering the estate as core proceedings.

Blixseth v. Brown · filed 2012-03-05(b)(2)(A)

Here, all of Blixseth’s claims against the various lawyers are core claims because they arise out Brown’s alleged misconduct as Chair of the Committee, which involved “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding that directly affects administration of a bankruptcy estate as core even if the underlying lease is governed by state law.

Sistemas Integrados de Salud del Suroeste, Inc. v. Medical Educational & Health Services, Inc. (In re Medical Educationa · filed 2012-03-31(b)(2)(A)

Hence, the Court finds that the removed state court proceeding, subject of the instant appeal, is a core proceeding, as it directly affects the administration of both MEDHS’ and MARC’s estates, even assuming arguendo that the lease agreement is governed by state law.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning the administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In re Sundance Self Storage-El Dorado LP · filed 2012-11-06(b)(2)(A)

The matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), as it concerns the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) authorize a bankruptcy court to order a debtor to distribute excess funds pro rata to minority shareholders.

In Re Ceda Mills, Inc. · filed 2013-10-01(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

... District Court rejected appellants’ argument that the Bankruptcy Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the April 13, 2010 order, holding that this order was a proper exercise of the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) & (b)(2)(O). ... After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the District Court did not err in its analysis.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

In re McDonald · filed 2014-04-01(b)(2)(A)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it concerns the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to grant an easement over estate property as core when the resulting encumbrance affects administration of the estate.

Rock Airport of Pittsburgh, LLC v. Management Science Associates, Inc. · filed 2014-04-11(b)(2)(A)

This Court sees this very discrete issue as one which squarely falls under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), given the facts of this case and the impact the granting of an easement and encumbrance of real property can have on the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute over a creditor’s joinder in a trustee’s turnover proceeding as core when it affects administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Cage v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2014-06-10(b)(2)(A)

This particular dispute over whether Green Bank can join as a party-plaintiff is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) because it affects the administration of this Chapter 7 estate.

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and determine state law claims against a trustee’s counsel when the claims concern administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Sui v. Goodrich (In Re Yan Sui) · filed 2014-07-07(b)

Contrary to Sui’s contentions, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the removed state law claims against Goodrich because they concerned the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a contempt order enforcing bankruptcy sanctions as a core proceeding when it concerns administration of the estate.

Garrett v. Coventry II DDR/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L.P. (In Re White-Robinson) · filed 2015-02-06(b)(2)(A)

The bankruptcy court issued its Sanctions Orders to help promote the proper administration of the estate, and therefore the later Contempt Order to enforce the Sanctions Orders still “concern[ed] the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a dispute that directly affects distribution of a debtor’s current property as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Delaware Trust Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. · filed 2015-07-23(b)(2)(A)

And because it directly bears on the distribution of the Debtors’ current property, this controversy “con-cernís] the administration of the estate” by the Bankruptcy Court, which in turn is a core bankruptcy function under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats determinations about estate property and its administration as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Kartchner v. Harper (In re Harper) · filed 2016-09-07(b)(2)(A)

This Court has jurisdiction over a question of, what is property of the bankruptcy estate, and who administers property of the estate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). ... Therefore, the determinations that the Trustee is authorized under the Bankruptcy Code to litigate the Claims and that he is not judicially estopped from pursuing them are unequivocally core proceedings in this bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding to determine the debtor’s rights in its principal estate asset as a core proceeding concerning estate administration.

Foxwood Hills Property Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2021-05-05(b)(2)(A)

A non-exhaustive list of matters that are core proceedings is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 157, which includes those concerning the administration of the estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). ... As a result, this adversary proceeding to determine what rights and the extent of those rights that comprise the Association’s bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding.

Claims concerning the sale and transfer of bankruptcy estate assets can be core proceedings as matters concerning estate administration.

BlueEarth Marine, LLC v. Cam · filed 2022-03-31(b)(2)(A)

We have arising in jurisdiction because we are dealing with the sale and transfer of bankruptcy assets, which is literally the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats matters concerning administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings within a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Leslie M Landau, DO · filed 2022-09-30(b)(2)(A)

Matters concerning the “administration of the estate” are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), over which this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers proceedings that determine how estate funds will be distributed among creditors as core proceedings concerning estate administration.

Elbar Invs., Inc. v. Okedokun (In re Okedokun) · filed 2018-11-06(b)(2)(A)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), because its resolution concerns the administration of the Debtor's Chapter 7 estate. Specifically, both Elbar and United Sentry have filed claims against this estate, and there is $1,719,062.93 in the registry of the Court that will be distributed, one way or the other, to these two entities as a result of this lawsuit.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers proceedings concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate, including disputes over what property belongs to the estate.

Pearce v. Woodfield (In re Woodfield) · filed 2019-05-16(b)(2)(A)

I conclude that this proceeding is core under § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats determining which claims belong to a bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Schubert · filed 2023-03-28(b)(2)(A)

But the Bankruptcy Code grants bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over core proceedings, including all matters concerning the administration of the bankruptcy estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Determining which claims belong to the estate certainly counts as part of administering the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) classifies matters concerning the administration of a bankruptcy estate as core proceedings, including a claim about whether a bankruptcy filing divested the debtor of a property interest.

Bartenfelder v. Bartenfelder · filed 2023-03-31(b)(2)(A)

Count 8 therefore implicates property of the estate, the applicability and operation of two statutory bankruptcy provisions, and “matters concerning the administration of the estate” and is therefore a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats proceedings concerning administration of the bankruptcy estate as core proceedings.

Treshun Trinelle Davis · filed 2023-07-19(b)(2)(A)

This Court determines that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), this proceeding involves primarily core matters as it “concern[s] the administration of the estate.”

Section 157(b) and (c) do not give a bankruptcy court jurisdiction over a claim objection raised after discharge when the claim can no longer be against or affect the estate.

McAlpin v. Educational Credit Management Corp. · filed 2002-01-28(b), (c)

We agree that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction in the claim- objection proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b) or (c) (establishing core and non- core bankruptcy court jurisdiction), because (1) Mr. McAlpin’s challenge to the propriety of the claimed collection costs came after his discharge, so the claim could no longer have been against the estate, and thus did not involve a right created by bankruptcy law or arising only in bankruptcy, see Specialty Mills, Inc. v. Citizens State Bank, 51 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir. 1995) (core proceedings); and (2) the claim- objection proceeding was not related to the bankruptcy, because at the time ... Mr. McAlpin objected to the claim there was no longer a plan to be confirmed, or an estate, and therefore the proceeding could not conceivably have affected his estate, see id. at 773-74 (non-core proceedings must have “conceivable effect” on administration of debtor’s estate); In re Fairfield Cmtys., Inc., 142 F.3d 1093, 1095 (8th Cir. 1998) (once bankruptcy debtor’s reorganization plan has been confirmed, debtor’s estate, and thus bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, ceases to exist; bankruptcy court is not meant to protect parties with regard to post-confirmation matters).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats a postconfirmation dispute over UST fees as a core proceeding when the dispute concerns enforcement of the confirmed plan.

In Re Pettibone Corp. · filed 2000-02-16(b)(2)(L)

As more fully discussed below, the instant issue is within this Court’s “arising in” jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction as applicable to Heico’s duty to pay UST fees was reserved under the confirmed Plan to be exercised post-confirmation. This matter constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) (“Confirmation of plans”).

Section 157(c)(1) gives a bankruptcy court postconfirmation related-to jurisdiction over a fee dispute when its resolution affects the allocation of property among creditors.

In Re N. Hess' Sons, Inc. · filed 1998-02-25(c)(1)

Pursuant to its related to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a bankruptcy court has postconfirmation, subject matter jurisdiction over a matter if, but only if, “... it affects the amount of property available for distribution or the allocation of property among creditors.” ... In cases where all other creditors have not been paid before the U.S. Trustee, it would affect the allocation of distributions among creditors; and the correct calculation of U.S. Trustee fees is thus within the jurisdiction of this court.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to enforce a confirmed bankruptcy plan as core proceedings, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter a final order.

Harlow v. Palouse Producers, Inc. (In Re Harlow Properties, Inc.) · filed 1985-12-23(b)(2)

Nevertheless, we find that orders enforcing the provisions of a confirmed plan fall within § 157(b)(2)’s flexible compass.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction after confirmation to aid plan administration or address matters listed in that subsection.

Turner Brothers, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury (In Re Turner Brothers, Inc.) · filed 1986-08-01(b)(2)

With confirmation, the jurisdiction of this Court remains to aid in administration of the Plan or other matters set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and the Order of Confirmation.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re Baker · filed 1986-08-01(b)(2)(L)

This matter is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Kitson · filed 1986-10-02(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings in an open bankruptcy case even after the debtor’s plan is confirmed.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Chernicky Coal Co. (In Re Chernicky Coal Co.) · filed 1986-12-08(b)(1)

However, the operation of § 1141 does not, by itself, close the case or otherwise divest the court of jurisdiction. Case closings are specifically governed by § 350. This bankruptcy case is still open. Therefore, we continue to have subject matter jurisdiction over core proceedings, like the instant one, which fall within 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats proceedings to confirm a bankruptcy plan as core proceedings.

In Re Manes · filed 1986-06-25(b)(2)(L)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157 treats confirmation of a reorganization plan as a core bankruptcy proceeding and permits the bankruptcy court to approve the plan and its disclosure statement.

In Re Aov Industries, Inc., Hubert R. Bruce, Appeal of Hawley Fuel Coalmart, Inc. And Hawley Fuel Coal, Inc. · filed 1986-08-22(b)(2)(L)

The approval of a disclosure statement and the confirmation of a reorganization plan are clearly proceedings at the core of bankruptcy law; appellant cites no authority for the notion that the court's actions were "related" proceedings within the meaning of the Emergency Rule or the 1984 Bankruptcy Amendments. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(L) (core proceedings include "confirmations of plans"); Emergency Rule Sec. (d)(3)(A) ("related proceedings do not include ... matters concerning the administration of the estate ... [or] proceedings in respect to the confirmation of plans").

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (L) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine core proceedings involving a reorganization plan.

In Re Bennett Paper Corp. · filed 1986-11-19(b)(2)(A), (L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes plan confirmation a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Cheatham · filed 1987-09-11(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes plan confirmation a core proceeding that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In re Professional Technical Services, Inc. · filed 1987-10-20(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats matters relating to the confirmation of a plan as core proceedings.

In Re Owens · filed 1988-02-09(b)(2)(L)

This is, of course, a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) as a matter relating to the confirmation of a plan.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes plan confirmation a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Future Energy Corp. · filed 1988-02-19(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats proceedings concerning plan confirmation as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Texaco Inc. · filed 1988-03-11(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding.

In Re Compton · filed 1988-05-24(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation matters as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

In Re Batchelor · filed 1988-08-11(b)(2)(L)

The matters presented are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), and this Court has jurisdiction to render a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2) treats confirmation of a reorganization plan as a core proceeding.

In Re William Herbert Hunt Trust Estate · filed 1988-09-16(b)(2)(A), (L), (O)

This is a core proceeding under 28 USC § 157(b)(2)(A), (L) and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats a Chapter 12 plan confirmation hearing that includes valuation as a core proceeding.

In Re Felten · filed 1988-09-21(b)(2)(L)

Pursuant to the confirmation procedures established in this District, the initial confirmation hearing was also conducted as a hearing on valuation. At issue in this hearing is the value of real estate which secures the debt owed to the Production Credit Association (PCA). This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 12 plan as a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter a final order.

In Re Kratz · filed 1988-10-28(b)(2)(L)

This contested matter, relating to confirmation of a Chapter 12 plan, is a core proceeding in which this bankruptcy judge may enter a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes plan confirmation a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

In re Tien Nguyen · filed 1988-11-04(b)(2)(L)

The proceeding before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L). The Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment in the case.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine plan confirmation as a core proceeding.

In Re Zurface · filed 1989-01-11(b)(1), (b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b) allows a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding involving claim valuation and plan confirmation.

In Re Hill · filed 1989-02-15(b)(1), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(L)

The matter at bar is a core proceeding which the Court may hear and determine in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and (2)(B) and (L).

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats a proceeding seeking revocation of a confirmed Chapter 11 plan as a core proceeding.

Skulsky v. NYAC Autopartstores Holding Co. (In Re NYACK Autopartstores Holding Co.) · filed 1989-04-13(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes an objection to plan confirmation a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Davis · filed 1989-06-07(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

In Re Harris · filed 1989-06-06(b)(2)(L)

This matter, affecting the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L) which this bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats plan confirmation as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

In Re Hayes · filed 1989-06-28(b)(2)(L)

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) makes confirmation of a bankruptcy plan a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and finally determine.

In Re Whittaker · filed 1990-05-07(b)(2)(L)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of plans as a core proceeding.

In Re Parker · filed 1990-08-10(b)(2)(L)

This matter is before the court in the bankruptcy ease referred to this court by the standing order of reference entered in this district and is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), confirmation of plans.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a bankruptcy court’s determination of administrative fees and expenses after plan confirmation when those matters concern plan consummation.

In Re DN Associates · filed 1994-02-23(b)(2)(A)

But allowance of administrative fees and expenses is fundamentally within this court’s statutory jurisdiction, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 330, 503, 507(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), 1334; and exercise of post confirmation jurisdiction over such issues is entirely proper.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding to enforce a confirmed bankruptcy plan as core when it could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Selinger v. Whiteman · filed 2004-08-05(b)(2)

Indeed, the proceeding to enforce the Plan is core because it “could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.”

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to treat a dispute arising from a Chapter 11 plan as a core proceeding and enter final judgment.

Century Indemnity Co. v. Special Metals Corp. (In Re Special Metals Corp.) · filed 2004-09-29(b)(2)(D)

This court has determined that the issues raised by the Plaintiff have already been litigated in the plan confirmation process, and this matter may properly be considered a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(D).