28 U.S.C. § 157

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

In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. · filed 1996-10-16(b)(2)(B)

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

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final order enforcing a confirmed plan’s injunction when the proceeding is core because it could arise only in a bankruptcy case.

Spirco, Inc. v. Copelin (In Re Spirco, Inc.) · filed 1996-10-18(b)(1)

Copelin’s contention that this is not a core matter is incorrect. As we indicated previously, the issues raised by their very nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy ease. Debtor requests enforcement of the injunction arising from plan confirmation against efforts by a pre-petition creditor to collect a debt owed to that creditor by debtor and a third party. Accordingly, we have authority to decide the matter by entering a final order and will do so.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning relief from the automatic stay and fraudulent transfers as core proceedings.

Dunbar v. Johnson (In Re Grady) · filed 1996-10-24(b)(2)(G), (H)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(I) makes a proceeding to determine dischargeability of a debt a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Butler v. Clark (In Re Clark) · filed 1996-11-07(b)(2)(I)

The nondischargeability claims presented arise in a ease referred to this Court by the Standing Order of Reference entered in this District on July 24, 1984; this is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court is authorized to enter a final judgment in this proceeding subject to those appeal rights afforded by 28 U.S.C. § 158 pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8001 and 8002.

Section 157 treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

Summers v. Anderson (In Re Summers) · filed 1996-11-08(b)(2)(I)

Determinations concerning the dischargeability of particular debts are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, this is a Core Proceeding.

Section 157 treats determinations of the dischargeability of debts as core proceedings.

First Deposit National Bank v. Gonzales (In Re Gonzales) · filed 1996-11-08(b)(2)(I)

Determinations as to the dischargeability of debts are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, this cáse is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies determinations of debt dischargeability as core proceedings.

Mitchell v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Mitchell) · filed 1996-11-08(b)(2)(I)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), determinations as to dischargeability of debt are core proceedings. Thus, this ease is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion for discretionary abstention under § 1334(c)(1) as a core proceeding because it arises only in a bankruptcy case.

In Re Finkley · filed 1996-11-21(b)(2)(A)

Similarly, a motion seeking abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) can arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case, and hence is a “core proceeding” arising in a case under Title 11.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens as core proceedings.

Rodriguez v. Citibank, F.S.B. (In Re Nowicki) · filed 1996-11-26(b)(2)

Because this proceeding is one to determine the validity, extent, and priority of liens, it is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (K), & (O).

Motions to convert are core proceedings because they concern administration of the estate.

In Re Thornton · filed 1996-12-06(b)(2)(A)

Motions to convert are matters concerning the administration of the estate, and thus are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2) treats automatic-stay and estoppel claims concerning control of estate property as core proceedings.

Slater v. Town of Albion (In Re Albion Disposal, Inc.) · filed 1996-12-12(b)(2)

In light of this Court’s holding that the Town’s action has the effect of controlling property of these Debtors, this Court’s exclusive and core jurisdiction over the § 362(a) and estoppel causes of action is clear under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), (G) and (0). So far as those causes are concerned, the Town’s argument to the contrary is rejected, and its request for discretionary abstention is denied without prejudice to later renewal.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent conveyance action as core when the trustee brings it.

Miller & Miller Auctioneers, Inc. v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers International, L.P. (In Re Missouri Properties, Ltd.) · filed 1996-12-16(b)(2)(H)

There is no specific reference in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) that conveys core status on this proceeding. Furthermore, the debtors are defendants in the Texas State District Court case. Section 157(b)(2)(H) by its plain language states the action to avoid a fraudulent conveyance must be brought by the trustee.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state-law case a core proceeding merely because its recovery will go to the bankruptcy estate.

Hatcher v. Lloyd's of London · filed 1997-01-02(b)(2)

As was discussed above, this court has found that because any recovery made by the Plaintiffs on their state law claims will go to the bankruptcy estate, the state law case and bankruptcy cases are related. However, because this relationship is the only factor weighing in favor of a finding that the state law case is a core proceeding, it is not sufficient to also establish that the Plaintiffs’ state law case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an application to waive a chapter 7 filing fee as a core proceeding.

In Re Caldwell · filed 1997-01-02(b)(2)(A)

By virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), this application for waiver of the chapter 7 filing fee pursuant to the provisions of H.R. 2519 is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats resolution of a claim against a chapter 11 estate as a core proceeding.

Smith v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Smith) · filed 1997-01-09(b)(2)(B)

The adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) since it involves the resolution of a claim of the IRS against the chapter 11 estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats challenges to the propriety of sales of bankruptcy estate assets as core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re: Fred W. Allnutt, Sr., Debtor. Fred W. Allnutt, Sr. v. Stephen L. Wilcoxson, Mark J. Friedman, Trustee-Appellee · filed 1997-01-13(b)(2)(A)

Challenges to the propriety of sales of assets of the bankruptcy estate are core bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (1994).

Section 157(b)(2) treats determinations of dischargeability and objections to discharge as core proceedings.

American General Finance, Inc. v. Burnside (In Re Burnside) · filed 1997-01-21(b)(2)

Determinations concerning the discharge-ability of a debt and objections to discharge are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Thus, this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a dispute over a post-petition contract made as part of estate administration and subject to bankruptcy court approval as a core proceeding.

In Re Hildebrand · filed 1997-01-24(b)(2)

This Court is first asked to determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide a contract dispute involving a contract which was entered into post-petition as part of the administration of the case and which was expressly subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. For the reasons stated herein, this Court finds that it has core jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Section 157(b)(2)'s catch-all provisions do not make state law claims against non-debtors core proceedings absent a sufficient connection to the bankruptcy issues.

Bethlahmy v. Kuhlman (In Re ACI-HDT Supply Co.) · filed 1997-01-24(b)(2)(A), (O)

We conclude that the bankruptcy court erred when it determined that the state law claims were within the core jurisdiction of the court. There has been no showing that the claims are so intertwined with the bankruptcy issues presented as to draw them within the catch-all provisions of § 157(b)(2)(A) or (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as a core proceeding; expiration of a judgment does not remove the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to decide whether the debt remains valid.

Muhammad v. Chasteen · filed 1997-01-30(b)(2)(I)

A proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I). ... Therefore, the bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether a valid claim exists, and this jurisdiction cannot be lost by the occurrence of an event, such as the expiration of a judgment, that may affect the validity of a claim.

Section 157 permits a constructive trust claim against a debtor’s estate to be treated as a core proceeding.

Petition of Treco · filed 1997-02-10(b)(3)

Adopting the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit in Canal Corp, v. Finnman, 960 F.2d 396, 401-03 (4th Cir.1992), I also conclude that a constructive trust theory of recovery can be viewed as a claim against an estate — a matter within the core jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) classify a proceeding as core when it concerns estate administration and affects estate liquidation or adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

In Re Schmidt · filed 1997-02-18(b)(2)(A) and (O)

The matter at bar is a core proceeding for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) because it concerns the administration of the estates and affects the liquidation of assets of the estates or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) covers whether a debt is dischargeable, but not whether a claim is barred by a confirmation order.

Bethesda Boys Ranch v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · filed 1997-03-07(b)(2)(I)

Contrary to Texaco’s assertions, the claims raised by the plaintiffs do not involve a core proceeding as defined under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), as that provision addresses whether a particular “debt” is dischargeable in bankruptcy rather than whether claims are barred due to the entry of a confirmation order.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers a dispute over the commercial reasonableness of a bankruptcy court-authorized collateral sale when the dispute arises from a settlement of the bankruptcy case.

Gentry v. Gentry · filed 1997-03-19(b)(2)(A)

Critical to whether the bankruptcy court properly declined to abstain is a determination of whether the proceedings as to the commercial reasonableness of the sale of equine collateral, pursuant to a Global Settlement Agreement, a Security Agreement, and an Order by the bankruptcy court, constitute a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). ... Therefore, the Court concludes that this proceeding as to the commercial reasonableness of the sale authorized by the bankruptcy court is a core proceeding and thus mandatory abstention was not called for.

Section 157 treats a state-law breach-of-contract suit that can stand alone in state court as a noncore proceeding.

S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co. (In Re S.N.A. Nut Co.) · filed 1997-03-25(b)(2)

The Complaint does not involve a question arising from a statutory section under title 11, nor does it involve an administrative matter that arises only in a bankruptcy case. This Court has previously held that when a complaint can stand alone in a state forum it is noncore.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) treat disputes over the extent of a debtor’s property rights as core bankruptcy proceedings.

BNY Licensing Corp. v. Isetan of America Inc. (In Re Barney's, Inc.) · filed 1997-03-25(b)(2)(A), (O)

The issues raised by defendants regarding the rights and interest granted to Barneys Japan under the Letters of Direction are core matters because they focus on the extent of those debtors’ property rights.

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

Alofs Manufacturing Co. v. Toyota Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. (In Re Alofs Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1997-04-01(b)(2)(E)

This matter is a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2)(E) because it involves a request to turnover property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a claim as core when the Bankruptcy Code creates the right or remedy; a state-law insurance coverage claim is noncore even if it substantially affects the debtor's estate.

In re United States Brass Corp. · filed 1997-04-02(b)(2)

Core proceedings are actions by or against the debtor that arise under the Bankruptcy Code in the strong sense that the Code itself is the source of the claimant's right or remedy, rather than just the procedural vehicle for the assertion of a right conferred by some other body of law, normally state law. ... The right to complain about a preference is created by the Bankruptcy Code itself, whereas Eljer's claimed right to insurance coverage is a creation of state contract law and one that could be vindicated in an ordinary breach of contract suit if Eljer were not a bankrupt.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an administrative-expense claim under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b) as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction.

W.A. Lang Co. v. Anderberg-Lund Printing Co. (In Re Anderberg-Lund Printing Co.) · filed 1997-04-07(b)(2)

A claim for an administrative expense pursuant to section 503(b) is a core proceeding for which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re Kleather · filed 1997-04-09(b)(2)(G)

Motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to remand a removed bankruptcy matter as a core proceeding.

Billington v. Winograde (In Re Hotel Mt. Lassen, Inc.) · filed 1997-04-15(b)(2)(A)

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(d) specifies that the motion to remand is a separate "contested matter" under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9027(d). It is a "core proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

A proceeding to enforce a bankruptcy discharge is a core proceeding under § 157.

In Re Latanowich · filed 1997-04-16(b)(2)(O)

A proceeding to enforce the discharge is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning the retention and compensation of bankruptcy counsel as core proceedings.

In Re Bressman · filed 1997-05-09

Issues relating to the debtor’s retention and compensation of bankruptcy counsel pursuant to §§ 328, 329, 330 and 331 of the Bankruptcy Code are “core” proceedings as defined by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes allowance of claims a core proceeding in which bankruptcy courts retain enhanced discretion to deny enforcement of arbitration clauses.

In Re Day · filed 1997-05-15(b)(2)(B)

In the context of the claims allowance process, which is among the most fundamentally core of any bankruptcy contested matters, we believe that bankruptcy courts continue to retain enhanced discretion to deny enforcement of arbitration clauses. ... Thus, in the present case, we have and will exercise discretion to determine the objections of the Debtors to the CHA’s claims against them regardless of the arbitration clauses in the Debtors’ leases.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to remand a removed state court action as a core proceeding.

Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp. v. Grace/Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc. (In Re Montague Pipeline Technologies Cor · filed 1997-05-27(b)(2)(A)

Grace’s motion for remand is a core proceeding within 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats a proceeding to sell property free and clear of liens as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may issue final orders and judgments.

Rivet v. Regions Bnk of LA · filed 1997-06-02(b)(2)(N)

Indeed, a proceeding to sell property free and clear of liens pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b) and (f) is a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to issue final orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2) treats motions to lift the automatic stay as core proceedings.

Shawmut Bank Connecticut v. Lawrence · filed 1997-06-02(b)(2)

The threshold core/non-core determination is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Under that section, motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay are considered core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). As stated, the Plaintiff in this case seeks to withdraw the reference of a motion to lift the automatic stay. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff seeks to withdraw a core matter from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to recover property of the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding; an action over funds outside the estate is not core on that basis.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,399 in the Matter of June M. Heath, Debtor. Joseph M. Black, Trustee v. United States Postal Service · filed 1997-06-10(b)(2)(E)

If the $50 taken from Heath’s wages to pay the Postal Service’s garnishment fee were property of the estate, this adversary action would be within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E). But as it is not property of the estate, and no other basis of core jurisdiction is present, the action can be maintained in the bankruptcy court only if it is “related” to the bankruptcy proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), which means (so far as bears on the present case) only if it is likely to affect the debtor’s estate, ... — of which there is no evidence.

Section 157’s distinction between core and non-core proceedings does not make non-core status dispositive of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

Bayview Plaza Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Town of North East (In Re Bayview Plaza Associates Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1997-06-26

The defendants also make an argument that this adversary proceeding is not core, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction. The non-core nature of an adversary proceeding would not be dispositive on the jurisdictional issue.

Section 157(b)(2) treats objections to discharge as core proceedings.

Hunter v. Shoup (In Re Shoup) · filed 1997-06-27(b)(2)

Objections to discharge are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning the allowance of claims and the dischargeability of debts as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may adjudicate.

United States v. Cassidy (In Re Cassidy) · filed 1997-06-30(b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(I)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) sets forth the types of proceedings to be classified as “core proceedings.” This Court finds that this Adversary Proceeding is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B) and (I), which provide: ... Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs claim and make a determination with regard to the dischargeability thereof.

Section 157 treats claims arising from a debtor-in-possession’s post-petition activities that affect estate administration as core proceedings.

Hatchrite Corp. v. Chesterfield Financial Corp. (In Re Hatchrite Corp.) · filed 1997-06-30(b)(2)(A)

In the instant case, the Defendant concedes in its Motion that these claims arose post-petition. This Court, therefore, finds that these causes of actions are core proceedings affecting the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats a proceeding to determine whether a debt is dischargeable as a core proceeding.

Langan v. Evers (In Re Evers) · filed 1997-07-01(b)(2)(I)

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

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

Swanson v. Montello State Bank (In Re Hill) · filed 1997-07-01(b)(2)(F)

A proceeding to determine, avoid, or recover preferences is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(B) makes an objection to a debtor’s exemptions a core proceeding in which a bankruptcy judge may enter final orders and judgments.

In Re Meyer · filed 1997-07-08(b)(2)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), this is a core proceeding in which final orders and judgments may be entered by a bankruptcy judge, subject to the right of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158.

Section 157 treats a proceeding about the scope of a bankruptcy discharge as core, allowing the bankruptcy court to hear and decide it.

Ferrell v. Robinson Mann Creative Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Brown) · filed 1997-07-23(b)(2)

However, the Proceeding clearly raises an issue regarding the scope of Ferrell’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a). ... We therefore conclude that the Proceeding is core and that it is proper for us to exercise our jurisdiction to determine it at this time.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an action to determine whether a confirmed reorganization plan and discharge injunction bar collection of a preconfirmation debt as a core proceeding.

Matter of National Gypsum Co. · filed 1997-07-24(b)(2)

Accordingly, we agree with both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court and hold that a declaratory judgment action seeking merely a declaration that collection of an asserted preconfirmation liability is barred by a bankruptcy court's confirmation of a debtor's reorganization plan (and the attendant discharge injunctions under sections 524 and 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code) is a core proceeding arising under title 11.

A motion to dismiss a Chapter 7 case under § 707(b) is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2).

In Re Watkins · filed 1997-08-06(b)(2)

This contested matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) and because it arises under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b).

Section 157 treats claims arising from post-petition transactions involving the debtor and bankruptcy court as core proceedings.

In Re Albion Disposal, Inc. · filed 1997-08-11(b)(1)

With respect to the plaintiffs’ estoppel claims, they too are core proceedings because they arose out of post-petition transactions between the defendants, the plaintiffs, the Debtors and the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(b) treats an action seeking to enforce a confirmed reorganization plan and its discharge injunction against collection of a preconfirmation debt as a core proceeding.

Insurance Co. of North America v. NGC Settlement Trust & Asbestos Claims Management Corp. · filed 1997-08-13(b)

Accordingly, we agree with both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court and hold that a declaratory judgment action seeking merely a declaration that collection of an asserted pre-confirmation liability is barred by a bankruptcy court’s confirmation of a debtor’s reorganization plan (and the attendant discharge injunctions under sections 524 and 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code) is a core proceeding arising under title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O) identifies estate administration, claims resolution, and estate liquidation as core bankruptcy functions that a Rule 2004 examination can advance.

In Re RFD, Inc. · filed 1997-08-14(b)(2)

The Code and the Rules do not provide any other procedural form for resolving disputes and certainly the purpose of the Rule 2004 examination is to advance the administration of the estate, the resolution of claims, or the liquidation of the estate, core functions under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), and (O), respectively.

Section 157 treats a request to dismiss a bankruptcy case with a bar to refiling as a core proceeding when it concerns administration of the estate and affects estate assets.

In Re Rauso · filed 1997-08-22(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

GE’s request for dismissal with a bar to refiling is a “core proceeding” because it both concerns the administration of the estate and affects the assets of the estate.

Section 157 does not make claims core proceedings merely because a bankruptcy estate owns them when the claims exist independently of bankruptcy.

FoxMeyer Health Corp. v. McKesson Corp. (In Re Foxmeyer Corp.) · filed 1997-08-27

But, even if one of the bankruptcy estates owns the claims, the claims do not involve a core matter. The claims do not arise under Title 11; they exist irrespective of any bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(1) treats the determination of whether a bankruptcy claim can be satisfied by a monetary award as a core proceeding within the bankruptcy court's authority.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Continental Airlines, LPP (In Re Continental Airlines) · filed 1997-08-29(b)(1)

There can be no dispute that the issue as to whether the bankruptcy claim could be satisfied by a monetary award is a "core bankruptcy matter."

Section 157(b)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to decide, as a core proceeding, whether a filed claim may be satisfied by money instead of specific performance.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Continental Airlines · filed 1997-08-29(b)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Claimants' claims could be satisfied by a monetary award in lieu of specific performance.

Section 157 treats a proceeding affecting the debtor-creditor relationship established by a confirmed plan as core even after the estate's property has passed to a trust.

Smith v. Allison (In Re Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.) · filed 1997-09-23(b)(2)(O)

Although there is no longer an estate (all property having passed to the Trust), this matter does affect the “adjustment of the debtor-creditor ... relationship” made by the Plan. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). Therefore, this Court has core jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats a motion to dismiss this adversary complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) as a core proceeding.

Helena Chemical Co. v. Circle Land & Cattle Corp. (In Re Circle Land & Cattle Corp.) · filed 1997-10-08

The Court finds independently of the stipulation that the motion to dismiss under Fed. R.CivP. 12(b)(6) is core under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the general reference order of the District Court effective July 10, 1984 (D. Kan. Rule 83.8.5).

Section 157 treats claim classification during plan confirmation as a core proceeding and permits the bankruptcy court to decide matters affecting that classification.

In Re Payless Cashways, Inc. · filed 1997-11-18(b)(2)(B)

I ruled that the classification of claims, as part of the process of determining whether a Plan of Reorganization is confirm-able, is a core proceeding, and that, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to determine any matter that impacts on the classification of claims.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a trustee’s compromise of an estate claim as a core proceeding concerning estate administration that the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

In Re Frye · filed 1997-11-24(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) which entitles this court to hear and determine all core proceedings arising under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (1994). Core proceedings include matters concerning the administration of the estate which will also include the compromise of a claim by a trustee.

A trustee’s disgorgement action is a core proceeding when the claim exists solely under Title 11 and could not exist outside bankruptcy court.

Stumpf v. Creel & Atwood, P.C. (In Re Lockwood Corp.) · filed 1997-12-02(b)(2)

The Chapter 7 Trustee’s claim exists solely under Title 11 and it could not exist outside the bankruptcy courts. Therefore, the disgorgement action by the Chapter 7 Trustee is a core proceeding, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make a debtor’s state-law claim on a pre-petition contract a core proceeding merely because the contract is estate property available for distribution to claimants.

United States Lines, Inc. v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n, Inc. (In Re United States Li · filed 1997-12-04(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The bankruptcy court’s finding that the P & I policies at issue continue to exist as property of the estate which may be earmarked by the Trustee for distribution to a potentially large class of claimants, does not lead this Court to modify its conclusion that the adversary proceedings are, at bottom, state law contract claims, arising from pre-petition contracts, which, under both Marathon and Orion cannot be finally adjudicated by a non-Article III court.

Section 157 treats a post-confirmation quarterly fee dispute as a core proceeding when it arises in an open bankruptcy case.

United States Trustee v. Boulders on the River, Inc. (In Re Boulders on the River, Inc.) · filed 1997-12-18(b)(1)

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes the quarterly fee question now before the court constitutes a core proceeding because it arises in a title'll case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a challenge to fees for processing Chapter 13 income deduction orders as a core proceeding when the fees affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Hudson v. United States Postal Service (In Re Hudson) · filed 1997-12-22(b)(2)(A)

This is a core proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), as the charging of fees for processing income deduction orders in chapter 13 cases affects the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a motion concerning a financing agreement, possession of consigned goods, and an accounting, as well as reconsideration of its disposition, as core matters.

Holden MacHinery v. Sundance Tractor & Mower (In Re Fried Group, Inc.) · filed 1998-01-16(b)(2)(O)

The subject order resolved Holden’s Motion To Terminate Financing Agreement, To Obtain Possession Of Consigned Goods, And For An Accounting. The Court’s determination of that motion was a core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). Reconsideration of the order is, likewise, a core matter within the meaning of that section.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not classify garnishment of nonestate property as a core proceeding when it affects neither estate liquidation nor a dispute between the debtor and creditor.

Hoc, Inc. v. McAllister (In Re McAllister) · filed 1998-01-26(b)(2)(O)

Obviously the garnishment proceeding filed by the plaintiff herein does not qualify as it involves neither the liquidation of property of the bankruptcy estate nor the adjustment of some dispute between the plaintiff and the debtor.

Civil contempt arising from a debtor’s failure to file schedules and statements of financial affairs is a core proceeding concerning administration of the estate.

In Re Burkman Supply, Inc. · filed 1998-02-10(b)(2)(A)

Because the filing of schedules and statements of financial affairs are clearly “matters concerning the administration of the estate,” the civil contempt order at issue is a core matter.

Section 157 does not classify a lien creditor’s fraudulent transfer action as a core proceeding when the bankruptcy estate has no interest in it.

Girard v. Michener (In Re Michener) · filed 1998-02-13(b)(2)

Plaintiffs fraudulent transfer action is not a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b) does not classify a promissory-note dispute between nondebtors that does not directly implicate the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Hickox v. Leeward Isles Resorts, Ltd. · filed 1998-04-23(b)

Therefore, considering settled precedent and the fact that this suit involves a dispute between two non-debtors which does not directly implicate the estate, the court finds that plaintiffs suit does not qualify as a “core”, proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) gives the bankruptcy court core jurisdiction over a § 548 fraudulent-transfer claim; standing and whether the complaint states a claim are separate questions.

Cambridge Tempositions, Inc. v. Cassis (In Re Cassis) · filed 1998-05-04(b)(2)(H)

Because Plaintiffs are asserting a claim under § 548, the Court has core jurisdiction. No cause of action exists under § 548 outside of bankruptcy. It is more appropriate to determine whether the Complaint states a § 548(a) claim upon which relief can be granted and whether Plaintiffs have standing to assert such a claim than to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats a dispute over ownership of a claim against the bankruptcy estate as a core matter because claim allowance requires identifying the claim’s owner.

Baum v. Roberts (In Re Powell) · filed 1998-05-06(b)(2)(B)

Section 157(b)(2)(B) classifies the “allowance or disallowance of claims- against the estate ...” as a “core” matter. The Court finds, contrary to the parties’ assertions, that resolution of Baum’s adversary proceeding is a “core” matter within its jurisdiction. Essentially, Baum’s adversary proceeding asks the Court to determine whether Baum or Roberts may assert the claims that Baum owned (or still owns) against Powell’s bankruptcy estate. In order to either allow or disallow a claim, the Court must know, among other things, who owns the claim.

A state law insurance coverage action that can exist outside bankruptcy is not a core proceeding under § 157(b).

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Aselco, Inc. · filed 1998-05-13(b)

Moreover, the court’s conclusion that the declaratory judgment action here is not a core proceeding is supported by the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in United States Brass Corp. and the decisions of other courts.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify shareholders’ state-law fraud claim against noncreditors for prepetition conduct as a core proceeding.

131 Liquidating Corp. v. LaSalle Capital Group, Inc. (In Re 131 Liquidating Corp.) · filed 1998-06-05(b)(2)

The claim that is most obviously non-core is the Alexander shareholders’ fraud claim against the individual defendants. This claim is not within the definition of core proceedings in § 157(b)(2) and does not invoke a substantive right provided by Title 11. The claim arises under state common law and involves pre-petition conduct by parties who have no claim against the debtor.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to decide a core proceeding arising in a Title 11 case, including a dispute over a bankruptcy sale order that affects the debtor’s liability and distributions to creditors.

In Re Lawrence United Corp. · filed 1998-06-10(b)(1)

This aspect of the dispute could arise only in a bankruptcy proceeding. Furthermore, the order not only concerns the property sold and the proceeds received, it also involves the Debtor’s liability to General Accident and ultimately the distribution to all creditors. Therefore, the matter before the court is a “core” proceeding because it arose in a case under Title 11.

A bankruptcy court’s decision whether to abstain from noncore matters is itself a core matter.

Walker v. Bryans (In Re Walker) · filed 1998-06-16(b)(2)

It should be noted that, while the particular issues to be decided in the adversary proceeding ... are not all "core” matters, the decision regarding whether to abstain from some of these "non-core” matters is, itself, a "core” matter.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not turn traditional state law claims into core proceedings merely because they affect the debtor-creditor relationship.

N. Parent, Inc. v. Cotter & Co. (In Re N. Parent, Inc.) · filed 1998-06-26(b)(2)(O)

Section 157(b)(2)(0) can not be used as a “black hole” to turn traditional non-core proceedings into core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats proceedings to resolve objections to proofs of claim as core proceedings.

Falbaum v. Leslie Fay Companies, Inc. (In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.) · filed 1998-07-17(b)(2)(B)

In particular, Judge Brozman was clearly correct in holding that appellants’ proofs of claim fall squarely within the statutory definition of “core proceedings.”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a proceeding concerning the debtor’s proper filing of tax returns as core when it is important to administration of the estate.

LaBrum & Doak, LLP v. Bechtle (In Re LaBrum & Doak, LLP) · filed 1998-07-30(b)(2)(A)

Observing that no arguments urging a contrary result have emerged, we now conclude that the Debtor’s proper filing of its tax returns is of great importance to administration of its estate, rendering the Proceeding core under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). We will therefore proceed to determine the Proceeding on its merits.

Section 157(b)(1) limits core proceedings to those arising under Title 11 or arising in a Title 11 case; a state court action filed before the bankruptcy petition is not core.

Loomis Electric, Inc. v. Lucerne Products, Inc. · filed 1998-08-04(b)(1)

As this case arose before the bankruptcy filing, it cannot be considered a proceeding “arising under title 11” or proceeding “arising in a case under title 11.”

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not make prebankruptcy state law claims between unsecured creditors core proceedings merely because they touch the bankruptcy estate.

Liddle & Robinson, L.L.P. v. Daley (In Re Daley) · filed 1998-09-08(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

From Ben Cooper we glean that claims whose genesis is unrelated to the bankruptcy case, that is, those which are rooted in the pre-bankruptcy past and are brought under non-bankruptcy law, do not arise under Title 11 or in a case under Title 11, but are at best non-core and, then, only if there is a basis for the assertion of “related to” jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to decide a fee dispute as a core proceeding when the dispute arises in bankruptcy litigation and payment may affect the estate.

Geron v. Schulman (In Re Manshul Construction Corp.) · filed 1998-09-25(b)(1)

I find that this is a “core” proceeding. The motion to enforce the Stipulation and to impose a charging lien on the restrained assets involves a dispute that arises in a litigation that can be commenced only under Title 11 and could only arise in a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (B) treats a dispute over a debtor’s claimed exemptions as a core proceeding.

In Re Koons · filed 1998-09-25(b)(2)(A) and (B)

Moreover, we conclude that this is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a foreclosure proceeding affecting a debtor’s ability to reorganize and exercise its lease rights as a core proceeding.

Bancboston Real Estate Capital Corp. v. JBI Associates Ltd. Partnership (In re Jackson Brook Institute, Inc.) · filed 1998-10-20(b)(2)

I conclude, therefore, that this is a matter arising under title 11, and that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A), (N), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a trustee’s alter ego claim belonging to the bankruptcy estate as a core proceeding.

Tsai v. Buildings by Jamie, Inc. (In Re Buildings by Jamie, Inc.) · filed 1998-10-27(b)(2)

This court concludes that the alter ego claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate and, therefore, is properly asserted by the trustee as representative of the estate. ... The court concludes that this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats an action under the Bankruptcy Code against alleged bankruptcy petition preparers as a core proceeding even when the alleged conduct occurred in a prior bankruptcy case.

Robiner v. Home Owners Rescue Service (In Re Webb) · filed 1998-11-13(b)(2)(A)

In this case, the action against the alleged bankruptcy petition preparers, forming the core of the UST’s complaint, was created by the bankruptcy code and could not exist outside of the provisions of title 11. Thus, this matter is a core-proceeding. ... In addition, this matter is determined to be a core-proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

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

Hunter v. Snap-On Credit Corp. (In Re Fox) · filed 1998-11-24(b)(2)(F)

Proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157 treats proceedings affecting liquidation of estate assets as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

BancBoston Real Estate Capital Corp. v. JBI Associates Ltd. Partnership (In Re Jackson Brook Institute, Inc.) · filed 1998-11-24(b)(2)(O)

Although section 157(b) does not provide a precise definition of what is a core matter, “a proceeding is core under section 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Mortgage foreclosures are matters governed almost entirely by state law. Consequently, it appears at first blush that the Removed Foreclosure Action is not a core proceeding. It is clear here, however, that this is a core proceeding under section 157(b). ... These circumstances lead the Court to conclude that the Removed Foreclosure Action is a core proceeding in the Debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to section 157(b)(2)(0). Under section 157(b)(2)(0), “proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate” are core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). Here, the Removed Foreclosure Action affects one of the primary assets of the Debtor’s estate and, thus, is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings.

In re Shepherd · filed 1998-11-24(b)(2)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies determinations about the dischargeability of a particular debt as core proceedings.

Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Chapman (In Re Chapman) · filed 1998-11-25(b)(2)(I)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), a determination as to the dischargeability of a particular debt is a core proceeding. Thus, this matter is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent transfer complaint as a core matter.

Taylor v. Riverside-Franklin Properties, Inc. (In Re Taylor) · filed 1998-12-01(b)(2)(H)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate as a core proceeding for a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine.

In Re Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1998-12-03(b)(2)(B)

Resolution of an objection to the allowance of a claim is a core proceeding to be heard by a bankruptcy judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats counterclaims by the bankruptcy estate against persons filing claims against the estate as core proceedings.

Smith v. VW Credit, Inc. (In Re Smith) · filed 1998-12-03(b)(2)(C)

To the extent this action was brought as a counterclaim by Plaintiff individually against the VW Credit Inc. claim, it constitutes a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) (“Core proceedings include ... counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate”).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) classifies determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

Howard v. Caranci (In Re Caranci) · filed 1998-12-04(b)(2)(I)

Even a cursory analysis of the authorities cited reveals that the majority of the cases did not involve claims of nondischargeability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6), all of which are pure “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b) lets bankruptcy courts hear and determine core proceedings, including matters concerning administration of the estate.

Fleming v. Baynes (In Re Fleming) · filed 1998-12-08(b)

To the extent the plaintiff seeks an order rescinding Judge Baynes order to file tax returns, the proceeding is a matter concerning the administration of the estate and part of the process of the allowance and disallowance of claims. It is a “core” proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies proceedings that are core proceedings in a bankruptcy case.

In Re Teigen · filed 1998-12-18(b)(2)

These are core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157 distinguishes core from non-core bankruptcy proceedings and limits the bankruptcy court’s power to enter final judgments in non-core matters.

Halper v. Halper · filed 1999-01-06

To determine whether a proceeding is a “core” proceeding, courts of this Circuit must consult two sources. First, a court must consult § 157(b). Although § 157(b) does not precisely define “core” proceedings, it nonetheless provides an illustrative list of proceedings that may be considered “core.” See id. § 157(b)(2)(A)-(0). Second, the court must apply this court’s test for a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) provides that applying state law to a proceeding does not by itself make the proceeding non-core.

Southmark Corp. v. Coopers & Lybrand · filed 1999-01-11(b)(3)

The jurisdictional statute expressly provides that the applicability of state law to a proceeding is insufficient in itself to render it a non-core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies which bankruptcy matters are core proceedings.

In Re First Interregional Equity Corp. · filed 1998-11-30(b)(2)(A), (B), (K), and (O)

The issues raised by this contested matter are core proceedings as defined by Congress in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K) and (O).

Section 157(b)(2)(I) and (K) treat certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings.

Allison v. United States (In Re Allison) · filed 1998-12-04(b)(2)(I) and (K)

On that issue, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and it is a core proceeding under section 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (K).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies matters that are core proceedings in bankruptcy.

Rosenberg v. Rollins, Burdick, Hunter Co. (In Re Presidential Airways, Inc.) · filed 1999-01-13(b)(2)

Moreover, this court concludes that this is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b) allows bankruptcy judges to hear and finally determine core proceedings.

In re Dunning · filed 1999-01-14(b)

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and the court has the authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies proceedings to recover preferences as core proceedings.

Telesphere Liquidating Trust v. Galesi (In Re Telesphere Communications, Inc.) · filed 1999-01-21(b)(2)(F)

An action to recover a preference is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

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

In Re Treco · filed 1999-01-22(b)(2)(A)

We have subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 304 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157 and the “Standing Order of Referral of Cases to Bankruptcy Judges” of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 10, 1984 (Ward, Acting C.J.). This is a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

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

In Re Halpern · filed 1999-01-22(b)(2)(A)

The Wilf Group’s motion to dismiss the Debt- or’s chapter 11 case is a core matter within 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157 treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA v. Robinson (In Re Robinson) · filed 1999-01-25

Determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to vacate orders reopening a bankruptcy case and amending the debtor’s schedules as a core matter.

In Re Koch · filed 1999-01-26(b)(2)(A)

NBA’s motion is a core matter within 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats a motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case as a core matter.

Keenom v. All American Marketing (In Re Keenom) · filed 1999-02-01(b)(2)(A)

This matter comes before the Court on Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case by Thurman L. and Candace J. Keenom (“Debtors”). This is a core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers this proceeding concerning reaffirmation agreements as a core bankruptcy matter.

In Re Adams · filed 1999-02-02(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats fraudulent transfer actions as potentially core proceedings without making federal jurisdiction exclusive.

McCarthy v. Prince (In Re McCarthy) · filed 1999-02-02(b)(2)

The fact that a fraudulent transfer action might be a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) does not equate to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning dischargeability, estate administration, and adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship as core proceedings.

Melton v. Melton (In Re Melton) · filed 1999-02-04

Determinations concerning the dischargeability of particular debts; administration of the debtor’s estate; and proceedings affecting the adjustment of the Debtor-Creditor relationship are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats counterclaims by an estate against entities that filed claims against the estate as core proceedings.

Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. White Flint Ltd. Partnership (In Re Federated Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 1999-02-08(b)(2)(C)

We also find that this is a core proceeding pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(C) because, as we have concluded, Federated’s claims against White Flint are the equivalent of counterclaims against an entity that has filed a claim against the estate.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies categories of bankruptcy proceedings that are core proceedings.

Cajun Electric Members Committee v. Mabey (In Re Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.) · filed 1999-02-11(b)(2)

The court finds that this is a core proceeding pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

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

Kelley v. Chevy Chase Bank (In re Smith) · filed 1999-02-16(b)(2)(F)

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

Section 157(b) identifies core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine, including fraudulent conveyance proceedings.

Stevenson v. J.C. Bradford & Co. (In Re Cannon) · filed 1999-02-22(b)(A), (H), and (O)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(A), (H) and (O), plaintiffs fraudulent conveyance claim (Count VIII) is a core proceeding.

Section 157 permits a foreclosure proceeding intertwined with a predominant equitable subordination claim and a lien-validity determination to be treated as core.

Merchants Bank v. C.R. Davidson Co. (In Re CRD Sales & Leasing, Inc.) · filed 1999-02-22(b)(2)(K), (O)

We find that we must hear the foreclosure action as a core matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(B)(K) & (0) because the foreclosure proceeding, while based on state law, is so intertwined with the undoubtedly core subordination claim and the request to determine the validity and extent of Bank’s lien.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

Will v. Martinez (In Re Martinez) · filed 1999-02-25(b)(2)(I)

The parties did not dispute and the court finds that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) classifies this matter as a core proceeding.

In Re Ali · filed 1999-02-25(b)(2)(A)

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

Section 157(b) allows bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings arising under or arising in a bankruptcy case.

Rosin Law Offices, P.A. v. Lapsley (In Re Lapsley) · filed 1999-02-25(b)

This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and an adversary proceeding governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including Part VII of those rules.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of the dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

Elmore v. Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp. (In Re Elmore) · filed 1999-02-26(b)(2)(I)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(C) treats counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate as core proceedings.

Mims v. Kennedy Capital Management, Inc. (In Re Performance Nutrition, Inc.) · filed 1999-03-10(b)(2)(C)

This proceeding, which involves claims by the Trustee against Roth and Naturade for breach of fiduciary duties, conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and exemplary damages, is in the posture of a counterclaim to those claims; and this proceeding is therefore, a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C).

Section 157(b)(2) identifies certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings that the bankruptcy court may finally decide.

Brasslett v. Brasslett (In Re Brasslett) · filed 1999-03-18(b)(2)(B),(I)

My determinations under § 523 and § 522 are core proceedings under title 28 of the United States Code. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(B),(I). I enter final judgment.

Section 157(b)(2)(N) treats orders approving the sale of property as core proceedings when the relevant claimant has filed a claim against the estate.

Gazes v. Roswick (In Re Roswick) · filed 1999-03-25(b)(2)(N)

Second, the Roswicks assert that this is not a core proceeding. Section 157 of 28 U.S.C. defines core proceedings. It states that “orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims against the estate” are core proceedings. Melanie filed a claim in this bankruptcy case. Such is the situation here.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (E) identify matters concerning bankruptcy estate administration and orders to turn over estate property as core proceedings.

Finley v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety (In Re Finley) · filed 1999-03-11(b)(2)(A), (E)

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

Section 157 divides bankruptcy court jurisdiction into core and non-core matters, permits final judgment in core matters, and limits non-core matters to proposed findings unless the parties consent.

Aiello v. Providian Financial Corp. (In Re Aiello) · filed 1999-03-25(a), (b), (e)

The delegation of jurisdiction authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 157 is divided into “core” and “non-core” matters. The Bankruptcy Court may enter final judgment in a core matter delegated to it under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Subsection (e), however, provides that the Bankruptcy Court may only enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for recommendation to the District Court in non-core matters, unless the parties consent to the entry of a final judgment by the Bankruptcy Court. In any given dispute, therefore, the Bankruptcy Court must determine whether it is a core or a non-core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157 before ruling.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy judges to finally decide core proceedings and requires proposed findings for non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case.

Krystal Cadillac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc. v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1999-03-25(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c)(1)

Whether a particular proceeding is core represents a question wholly separate from that of subject-matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157, a bankruptcy court might have jurisdiction over a proceeding, but still might not be able to enter final judgments and orders. ... Indeed, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), “[bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title.” Section 157(b)(2) sets forth a nonexhaustive listing of core proceedings, including “matters concerning the administration of the estate.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). ... In other words, if the proceeding does not invoke a substantive right created by the federal bankruptcy law and is one that could exist outside of bankruptcy, it is not a core proceeding; it may be related to the bankruptcy because of its potential effect, but under section 157(c)(1), it is an “otherwise related” or non-core proceeding.

Section 157 defines core proceedings and allocates authority between district courts and bankruptcy judges.

Kirk v. Hendon (In Re Heinsohn) · filed 1999-03-16(b)(3)

Subsection (b) of § 157 denominates these three categories as “core proceedings.” ... Accordingly, this is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats proceedings to adjust the relationship between a debtor and a creditor as core proceedings.

S.N.A. Nut Co. v. Haagen-Dazs Co. (In Re S.N.A. Nut Co.) · filed 1999-03-29(b)(2)(O)

This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. section 157(b)(2)(0) as a proceeding to adjust the relationship between the debtor and a creditor.

Section 157(b)(2)(J) treats objections to discharges as core proceedings.

Bank of Dawson v. Cutts (In Re Cutts) · filed 1999-04-12(b)(2)(J)

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

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

Flatau v. Dover (In re Sanders) · filed 1999-04-12(b)(2)(E)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies preference avoidance actions as core proceedings.

Burlington Motor Carriers Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications (In Re Burlington Motor Holdings, Inc.) · filed 1999-04-14(b)(2)(F)

Our jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) inasmuch as the preference avoidance action at issue, a creation of bankruptcy law, is within the matters enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) as a core proceeding.

Section 157 defines core bankruptcy proceedings as those involving substantive rights under Title 11 or matters that arise only in bankruptcy.

Key Bank U.S.A., N.A. v. First Union National Bank of Florida · filed 1999-04-14

The court in In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir.1987), held that, “a proceeding is core under section 157 if it invokes a substantive right provided by title 11 or if it is a proceeding that, by its nature, could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case.” ... Following In re Wood, Plaintiffs claim is not a core proceeding to Defendant’s pending bankruptcy claim.

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

In Re Bargdill · filed 1999-04-15(b)(2)(B)

The allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Thus, this is a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats proceedings concerning estate administration, turnover, preferences, and asset liquidation as core bankruptcy proceedings.

French v. Bank One, Lima N.A. (In Re Rehab Project, Inc.) · filed 1999-04-15

Determinations concerning administration of the debtor’s estate; orders to turn over property of the estate; proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences; and other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, this case is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats certain bankruptcy matters as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

Rainwater v. Alabama (In Re Rainwater) · filed 1999-04-16(b)

Within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) as exemplified by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), and (0), this is a “core proceeding.” Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all core proceedings arising under Title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)(I) treats determinations of dischargeability of particular debts as core proceedings.

J. Bowers Construction Co. v. Williams (In Re Williams) · filed 1999-04-23(b)(2)(I)

It is determined to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I), over which this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) covers an adversary action against bankruptcy petition preparers as a core proceeding.

Staiano v. File Aid of New Jersey (In Re Bradshaw) · filed 1999-04-26(b)(2)(A)

The matter before the court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), and the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Standing Order of Reference issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 23, 1984.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Campana v. Pilavis (In Re Pilavis) · filed 1999-05-03(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), (0).

Section 157(b)(1) authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine core proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11.

Singley v. American General Finance (In Re Singley) · filed 1999-05-03(b)(1)

This is a core matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (J) classifies matters concerning administration of the estate and objections to discharge as core proceedings.

Rouse v. Stanke (In Re Stanke) · filed 1999-05-04(b)(2)(A) and (J)

The Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (J).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) identifies orders to turn over property of the estate as core proceedings.

Walker v. Contimortgage (In Re Walker) · filed 1999-05-05(b)(2)(E)

This case is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) because it attacks Conti’s asserted mortgage lien.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a matter a core proceeding merely because it could adjust the debtor-creditor relationship; the matter must arise under Title 11 or arise in a Title 11 case.

Bass v. Denney · filed 1999-04-15(b)(2)(O)

Thus, the case must be “arising under” Title 11 or “arising in” a case involving Title 11 to be a core proceeding.

Section 157’s core and non-core classification concerns the bankruptcy court’s authority; proceedings in either category may be remanded or abstained from.

1-Iron Commercial Premium v. Taylor Agency, Inc. (In Re Taylor Agency, Inc.) · filed 2001-06-14(b)(2)

Both parties make argument as to whether the removed case is a “core” or “non-core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Both categories of cases are subject to remand or abstention. The issue of “core” versus “non-core” relates the bankruptcy court's authority.

Section 157 treats a request to confirm or vacate a labor arbitration award as a core proceeding when it is brought in an adversary proceeding to enforce bankruptcy sale orders.

Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc. v. National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees (In Re Allegheny Health, Edu · filed 2001-07-30(b)(2)(N)

However, the Court holds that when a request to confirm or vacate a labor arbitration award is particularly made within the context of an adversary proceeding brought to enforce sales orders of the Court, such request is no longer routine and one which could also have been brought outside the confines of a bankruptcy case, thereby dictating a conclusion by the Court that such request, under such circumstances, constitutes a core proceeding; such request, because it is brought within the context of a proceeding to enforce sales orders, also likely falls within the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(N) as well, making the same a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) treats the validity of an insurance policy as a core proceeding when it is directly related to the discharge of a debt.

Green v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance · filed 2001-11-28(b)

The validity of the insurance policies is directly related to the debt discharge and is therefore properly considered a core proceeding.

Section 157 treats class claims that invoke rights created by bankruptcy law and arise only in bankruptcy as core proceedings, even if they are absent from its illustrative list.

Bank United v. Manley · filed 2001-11-29(b)

The claims of the putative class members find no mention in the list provisions of § 157(b)(2). They do, however, meet the secondary requirements delineated in Toledo. First, the putative class claims invoke a law created by the federal bankruptcy scheme. ... Second, and perhaps more importantly, the putative class claims involve issues that arise only in bankruptcy. ... This court, therefore finds that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding the putative class claims to be core proceedings arising under the bankruptcy code.

Section 157(b)(2) treats an adversary proceeding to recharacterize a lease as a core proceeding when the estate lawfully possesses the property and the determination is needed to resolve rights under title 11.

PSINet, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Capital Corp. (In Re PSINet, Inc.) · filed 2001-12-18(b)(2)

The issue, as this Court believes it can fairly be stated, is this: where a standalone adversary proceeding is brought to determine the interests of the debtor-lessee and its lessor -in ostensibly leased property already in the lawful possession of the estate, as a predicate for determining rights of the debtor and its lessor under title 11, is the recharacterization of the debtor-creditor relationship under such circumstances a core matter, within the meaning of § 157(b)? The answer, in this Court’s view, is yes.

Section 157 requires a bankruptcy judge to determine independently whether a proceeding is core, including when a default judgment is sought.

Schoenlein v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (In re Schoenlein) · filed 2002-06-20(c)(1)

The bankruptcy judge, nevertheless, has an independent obligation to determine if a proceeding is core. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This obligation is highlighted in proceedings involving default scenarios.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core even when the parties do not address the issue.

Schoenlein v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (In Re Schoenlein) · filed 2002-07-16(c)(1)

The bankruptcy judge, nevertheless, has an independent obligation to determine if a proceeding is core. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(1) gives bankruptcy courts full judicial power over core proceedings referred by district courts and allows them to decide and enter final judgments.

US Brass Corporation v. Shell Oil Company · filed 2002-07-31(b)(1)

Thus, if a matter within the broad scope of § 1334(b) satisfies the more precise notion of a core proceeding, § 157 authorizes the bankruptcy court to decide the matter and enter a final judgment.

Section 157(b) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and determine core proceedings arising under title 11.

Gandy v. Gandy · filed 2002-08-02(b)

All of these claims to avoid or recover pre-bankruptcy transfers are “core proceedings” arising under Title 11, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2) identifies this bankruptcy matter as a core proceeding.

In Re Dean · filed 2002-08-12(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), this is a core proceeding.