28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157’s listed core proceedings do not encompass independent state law claims merely because those claims could affect the listed proceedings.

In Re Robertson · filed 2001-04-12(b)(2)

The fact that Appellee's state law claims could certainly have a significant impact on one or all of these potential proceedings does not transform this case into a "core" proceeding under section 157(b)(1).

Section 157 does not treat claims as core proceedings when they arise outside the Bankruptcy Code and can be pursued outside bankruptcy.

Steele v. Ocwen Federal Bank (In Re Steele) · filed 2001-01-25(b)(1)

The claims here are not “core proceedings” because they are not causes of action that are created or determined by Bankruptcy Code provisions, nor are they based upon rights which cannot be pursued outside of the bankruptcy context.

Section 157(b)(2)(B) treats claim allowance as a core proceeding, but a state-law dispute with only a tangential connection to Chapter 11 administration is not core on that basis.

McDill Columbus Corp. v. U.S.A. Metropolitan Tax Credit Fund II, LP (In Re McDill Columbus Corp.) · filed 2001-01-22(b)(2)(B)

Second, the contention by the Defendant that the proceeding is “core” within the meaning of that term defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is far fetched. Further, the Defendant’s contention that the proceeding is nexus to the administration the Chapter 11 case is, at most, tangential and contrary to the intimation by the Defendants that it is not somehow part of the claim allowance process which is clearly a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Section 157(b)(2) does not treat a state-law action that can exist outside bankruptcy as a core proceeding merely because it is related to a bankruptcy case.

Thomas v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · filed 2001-01-03(b)(2)

This removed action simply is not a core proceeding, as defined under Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a dispute over a fee charged for complying with a bankruptcy court’s wage deduction order a core proceeding when the fee comes from funds outside the estate and the order was obeyed.

Fleetwood Homes of Georgia v. Morrison · filed 2000-11-17(b)(2)

Because Appellant is complying with the order, Appellant’s actions do not bring this case within the core jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. ... Because the funds are not property of the estate, Appellee is not enforcing a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law.

Section 157(b)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to hear and determine core proceedings, but a state-law guaranty claim that did not arise during bankruptcy is not a core proceeding.

Kalamazoo Realty Venture Ltd. Partnership v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. · filed 2000-07-06(b)(1)

“[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.” ... The instant case does not confer either “arising under” or “arising in” jurisdiction on the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 classifies claim allowance and lien priority proceedings as core, even when state law affects their resolution.

Natale v. French & Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust, Inc. (In Re Natale) · filed 1999-08-26(b)(2)

The Court, however, disagrees fundamentally with the Trust’s assessment of the proceeding as noncore. While Congress has not set forth a statutory definition for the core/noncore dichotomy, it did codify a nonexclusive list of core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The list includes under subsection (B) proceedings for the allowance and disallowance of claims and under subsection (K) proceedings to determine the validity, extent or priority of a lien. The present case falls squarely within both of these categories of core proceedings. Furthermore, in section 157(b)(3) Congress specifically instructs that a proceeding should not be given a noncore designation solely because its resolution may be affected by state law.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a proceeding core merely because its outcome may increase or decrease the estate’s assets.

J. Baranello & Sons, Inc. v. Baharestani (In Re J. Baranello & Sons, Inc.) · filed 1992-11-30(b)(2)(O)

Subsection (O) does not render a proceeding core merely because the resolution of the action may result in more, or less, assets in the estate.

Section 157(b)(3) does not permit a proceeding to be classified as noncore solely because state law may affect its resolution.

In Re Lawson · filed 1984-08-16(b)(3)

But we are instructed not to find that a proceeding is not a core proceeding solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by State law. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(2)'s core proceeding categories for turnover and liquidation of estate assets do not include an ordinary contract action to collect an account receivable.

Atlas Automation, Inc. v. Jensen, Inc. (In Re Atlas Automation, Inc.) · filed 1984-08-31(b)(2)

The complaint and the counterclaim are based on contract theories. Unless the Court were to read “orders to turn over property of the estate” or “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate ...” to include collection of accounts receivable or actions for breach of contract, this case is not a “core proceeding” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). ... Thus, although the perimeters of the definition of “turn over property of the estate” and “proceeding affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate” are yet to be explored, they do not include actions of this type. Therefore, the Court, on its own motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), determines that this case is a “proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11.”

Section 157 treats a motion to assume a contract under bankruptcy law as a core matter, but a request to resolve a contract default as a non-core proceeding.

In Re Harry C. Partridge, Jr. & Sons, Inc. · filed 1984-10-26

The instant motion, involving the assumption of an unexpired lease under 11 U.S.C. § 365, clearly involves a right under the bankruptcy law and is not a related matter. However, the debtor’s cross-motion for a declaratory judgment that it may assume the contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365 because it has not defaulted in its performance does not implicate rights arising under the bankruptcy law and presents neither a contested matter nor a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) does not treat separate state law contract actions as core proceedings, including actions seeking an injunction.

Pierce v. Airport Development Corp. (In Re Pierce) · filed 1984-12-06(b)

Although the precise meaning of “core proceedings” will doubtless be the subject of much future litigation, it is clear that “core proceedings” do not encompass separate state law contract actions.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a debtor’s breach of warranty claim a core proceeding merely because recovery would add assets to the estate or the defendant asserts a set-off.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Robinson Industries, Inc. · filed 1985-01-10(b)(2)(O)

Because I find that debtor’s action against defendant is not a “core” proceeding within the meaning of § 157(b) of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 (“1984 Act”), 28 U.S.C., § 157(b), and because the parties have demanded a jury trial, I must deny debtor’s motion for referral.

A debtor’s action to recover a postpetition account receivable can be a non-core matter within a bankruptcy court’s discretionary jurisdiction under § 157.

Franklin Press, Inc. v. Packard Press, Inc. (In Re the Franklin Press, Inc.) · filed 1985-01-15

This is a non-core matter within this court’s discretionary, statutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157 treats fraudulent conveyance claims based on rights created by state law as non-core proceedings.

Slutsky v. Byrd (In Re Byrd) · filed 1985-02-25(b)(2)(H)

In view of this statement we can find no alternative to reaching the conclusion that the adjudication of rights created by state law, not merely traditionally adjudicated under state common law, are not core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make state-law claims core proceedings merely because they affect the bankruptcy estate or the debtor-creditor relationship; such claims may be related proceedings.

Bokum Resources Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co. (In Re Bokum Resources Corp.) · filed 1985-05-30(b)(2)

With this in mind, I cannot conclude the issues before the court are “core” proceedings, but must regard them as state law issues peripherally related to this bankruptcy case. They are “related” proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) treats a state law claim as a core proceeding when it arises under or in a bankruptcy case and demonstrably affects the estate.

Allard v. Benjamin (In Re DeLorean Motor Co.) · filed 1985-06-03(b)(2)(O)

Where a state law cause of action arises under or in a case under title 11 and demonstrated to affect the estate it is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0).

Dependence on state law alone does not determine whether a bankruptcy proceeding is core.

Mandrell v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In Re Mandrell) · filed 1985-06-21(b)(3)

We know that dependence on state law is not alone determinative of what is within or without the core.

Section 157(b) does not treat actions to recover prepetition freight charges as core proceedings when the claims are independent of the bankruptcy petition and are not integral to restructuring debtor-creditor rights.

Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc. v. C J Van Houten E Zoon Inc. (In Re Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc.) · filed 1985-07-31(b)

The defendants have, in the alternative, requested a determination that the proceedings are not core proceedings. The Court agrees that these proceedings are not core proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(b) does not make an independent prepetition state-law action a core proceeding merely because its issues resemble listed core matters.

Zweygardt v. Colorado Nat. Bank of Denver · filed 1985-08-09(b)(1)

Here, although, as CNB points out, many of the issues would qualify to be heard and determined as “core” proceedings as defined in § 157(b), the issues were raised in the context of a civil action filed in the state court and were not presented as core proceedings “arising in” the Chapter 11 case. These issues arise as a result of pre-petition causes of action which could have been commenced totally independently of any bankruptcy case. I must conclude that the proceeding before me is not a core proceeding arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, so as to be within the jurisdiction conferred upon me by 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) or (b) or the Reference Order from the district court.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a state-law contract action a core proceeding merely because the trustee seeks turnover of money for the estate.

Cameron v. Anderson (In Re American Energy, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-11(b)(2)

From the foregoing analysis, this Court must conclude that the Trustee’s cause of action in the instant case is not a core proceeding arising under Title 11 nor is it one arising in a case under Title 11. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction under section 157(b)(2) to hear and finally determine the case.

Section 157 treats separate state law claims as related rather than core proceedings even when the defendant has filed a claim against the estate or the dispute could affect estate assets.

Braucher v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Illinois-California Express, Inc.) · filed 1985-06-18(b)(2)(C), (b)(2)(O)

Consequently, this court adopts the holding in Pierce, to wit, core proceedings do not encompass separate state law actions. Further, the presence of a non-bankrupt party as a claimant, or whether resolution of the dispute would augment the debtor’s estate or affect liquidation of assets of the estate, are factors that are not determinative of either the core or non-core distinction when tested against the criteria set forth in Marathon. For the foregoing reasons the Court finds that Counts II and III are related proceedings and this Court is without jurisdiction to finally determine them.

Section 157 treats a debtor’s state law breach of contract claim as a related, non-core proceeding when it would not be before a federal court apart from the bankruptcy case, even if it appears to fit a listed core category.

Mauldin v. Peoples Bank of Indianola (In Re Mauldin) · filed 1985-09-11(b)(2)

The allegations of the original complaint sound only state law causes of action which would not be properly before any federal court absent the filing of the bankruptcy case. As such, the original complaint is determined to be a related or non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) do not classify a debtor-in-possession’s state law contract suit against a defendant otherwise uninvolved in the bankruptcy as a core proceeding.

Shaford Companies v. Curr International Coffees, Inc. (In Re Shaford Companies) · filed 1985-09-11(b)(2)(A) and (O)

Accordingly, I conclude that subsections 157(b)(2)(A) and (O) must be construed as not including an adversary lawsuit brought by a debtor-in-possession based upon a state law contractual cause of action against a defendant not otherwise involved in the bankruptcy proceedings.

An action by a debtor to recover payment for goods sold, subject to a setoff defense, is a non-core proceeding related to the bankruptcy case under § 157(b)(2).

Englander Co. v. City Mattress of Amherst, Inc. (In Re United States Bedding Co.) · filed 1985-09-18(b)(2)

In the view of the undersigned, this is not a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), but a non-core or related proceeding.

Under a narrow reading of § 157(b)(2), a debtor’s action to collect a disputed account receivable is a related, noncore proceeding.

Arnold Print Works, Inc. v. Apkin (In Re Arnold Print Works, Inc.) · filed 1985-11-06(b)(2)

As a result of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in the interest of avoiding inconsistencies, it must defer to the district court’s narrow construction of section 157(b)(2) and find that the instant proceeding is one “related to” a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) treats collection of a debtor’s account receivable as a core proceeding concerning estate administration, allowing the bankruptcy court to enter final judgment.

Willis v. Ryan (In Re Bucyrus Grain Co.) · filed 1986-01-13(b)(2)(A)

The collection of a debtor’s account receivable is a critical part of the administration of the bankruptcy estate traditionally pursued by the Bankruptcy Court. The Court therefore finds that this is a core proceeding, and that it may enter a final judgment upon this matter.

Section 157 treats state law voluntary conveyance claims that are part of the bankruptcy claims as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine.

Huffman v. Brandon (In Re Harbour) · filed 1986-02-07(b)(2)(O)

Huffman’s voluntary conveyance claims are, therefore, not “related” claims, but core proceedings under 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(2)(0). Because they are core proceedings, the Bankruptcy Judge has full power to hear and determine them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2) generally does not make a debtor’s state-law contract and fraud claims core proceedings merely because their recovery could benefit the bankruptcy estate.

Sokol v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance (In Re Sokol) · filed 1986-04-25(b)(2)

While the list of core proceedings in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) is not exhaustive, the list of what is and what is not a core proceeding in that provision makes it clear that, as a general rule, a matter that arises directly in a bankruptcy case under bankruptcy law is a core proceeding, and a matter that arises under nonbankruptcy law and happens to be of issue in a bankruptcy case merely because of the accidental fact that one of the parties to the dispute is a debtor in the bankruptcy case usually is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a contract dispute arising from a debtor-in-possession’s post-petition activities as a core proceeding.

Mansker v. Campbell (In Re Mansker) · filed 1986-05-22(b)(2)

The operative events in the present case likewise occurred post-petition and involved activities of the Debtor as Debtor-in-Possession, and for that reason the Court finds this to be a core proceeding.

A state-law action to enjoin payment under a letter of credit is not a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2) merely because it could affect a debtor’s reorganization.

Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (In Re Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc.) · filed 1986-05-29(b)(2)

As such, Plaintiffs argue, this proceeding not only arises in a title 11 case, but is, in fact, a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (0) which may be heard and finally determined by the undersigned bankruptcy judge. The Court does not agree. ... As in Marathon, Plaintiffs’ cause of action is one founded solely on state law. Therefore, were this Court to hold Plaintiffs’ cause of action to be a core proceeding arising in a case under title 11, it would not only disregard the clear holding of Marathon, but would construe the Amendments in a way which renders them unconstitutional. This the Court will not do.

Section 157(b)(3) prevents a court from finding a proceeding non-core solely because state law may affect its resolution.

Rosenfield v. Alloy & Stainless, Inc. (In Re Rosenfield) · filed 1986-06-25(b)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) provides in part that “[a] determination that a proceeding is not a core proceeding shall not be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by State law.” ... The Court finds that the instant action constitutes a core proceeding and that- it has jurisdiction over the entire adversary proceeding, including that aspect of the Plaintiff’s complaint seeking to avoid A & S’ judgment lien.

Section 157(b) does not make a disputed insurance-coverage claim a core turnover proceeding; the claim proceeds as a related proceeding under § 157(c)(1).

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casuals, Inc.) · filed 1986-08-21(b)

This being so, I conclude that the Bankruptcy Court’s exercise of core proceeding jurisdiction here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is erroneous, and remand to the Bankruptcy Court to proceed hereafter with this cause of action as a related proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 does not classify an ordinary landlord-tenant dispute as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

John Craig & Co. v. MacKie & Kamrath, Interests (In re MacKie & Kamrath) · filed 1986-10-29

This is not a core proceeding. It is a garden variety landlord tenant controversy that ought be litigated in the courts of the State of Texas.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a debtor’s breach-of-contract claim a core proceeding merely because a recovery would augment the estate or affect debtor-creditor relations.

First Florida Building Corp. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau (In Re Shafer & Miller Industries) · filed 1986-10-30(b)(2)(O)

The Court finds Marathon dispositive of the instant appeal and concludes that this adversary proceeding for breach of contract can only be characterized as one “related to” a chapter 11 proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make collection of prepetition or postpetition accounts receivable a core proceeding.

Aristera Co. v. Chaney (In Re Aristera Co.) · filed 1986-10-11(b)(2)

This Court agrees with Satelco that the collection of prepetition accounts receivable is not a core proceeding. Although a stronger case can be made for construing the collection of postpetition accounts receivable as a core proceeding, such an action is not included in the § 157(b)(2) laundry list and this Court is not inclined to extend the definition of core proceedings that far.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify adversary proceedings resting solely on state law as core proceedings.

M & E Contractors, Inc. v. Kugler-Morris General Contractors, Inc. · filed 1986-10-28(b)(2)

Adversary proceedings that rest solely in issues of state law — such as collection suits by a debtor in bankruptcy against non-creditor defendants — are not “core” proceedings, but are “related” or “noncore” matters.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a state-law retaliatory-discharge claim against a bankruptcy trustee personally as a core proceeding.

Stallings v. Kellogg (In Re Hudson Oil Co.) · filed 1986-12-30(b)(2)

Defendant’s citation of section 157(b)(3) and his arguments that the claim falls within the broad provisions of section 157(b)(2) does not alter that fact. Hence, because constitutional concerns preclude the bankruptcy court from finally deciding plaintiff’s state law claim, we conclude that it is not a core proceeding.

An ordinary accounts receivable action is a core proceeding under § 157(b)(3).

Tubular Products, Inc. v. Kepastto Developers & Contractors, Ltd. (In Re Tubular Products, Inc.) · filed 1987-01-29(b)(3)

We would categorize this action as such a garden-variety accounts receivable action and, consistent with our holding in Windsor, we determine this matter to be a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to modify a debtor’s prepetition contracts with parties who owe the debtor money.

English v. Valero Hydrocarbons Co. (In Re Northwest Exploration Co.) · filed 1987-03-26

The jurisdictional parameters established by the decisions in Marathon, Satelco, and the provisions found in 28 U.S.C. § 157 and 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a), undeniably prohibit a bankruptcy debtor from using the Bankruptcy Courts to modify pre-Petition contractual relationships with his debtors.

Section 157(b)(3) does not make a proceeding non-core solely because state law affects its resolution.

Credit Alliance Corp. v. Concord Coal Corp. (In Re Concord Coal Corp.) · filed 1988-01-13(b)(3)

But the controlling statute explicitly provides that “[a] determination that a proceeding is not a core proceeding shall not be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by State law." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). ... The Court rejects CAC’s argument that because state law was relevant to the bankruptcy court’s decision-making, the decision rendered is not due the deference accorded by the clearly erroneous standard.

Section 157(b) treats a claim arising from a post-petition contract as a core proceeding when the cause of action did not exist before the bankruptcy filing.

Rafoth v. National Union Fire Insurance (In Re Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 1988-06-30(b)(2)

Hence, the cause of action asserted in this proceeding did not exist prior to the filing of the Petition. This action fails to meet one of the required characteristics of a non-core proceeding, and the action shall be deemed to be a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) bars a non-core determination based solely on a claim’s state-law origin.

Germain v. Connecticut National Bank (In Re O'Sullivan's Fuel Oil Co.) · filed 1988-07-22(b)(3)

The short answer to this contention is that § 157(b)(3) specifically downgrades the factor of state law origin as a determinant in the core/non-core analysis.

Section 157 does not give a bankruptcy court jurisdiction over a state law contract claim when there is no valid Title 11 claim.

In the Matter of Dan L. Wey, Debtor. Appeal of Robert L. Sullivan, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. William W. Willock, Jr. And · filed 1988-08-17

Because there was no valid Title 11 bankruptcy claim, the bankruptcy court was without jurisdiction to address any state law contract claim.

Section 157(b)(2)(A), (E), and (O) do not classify a debtor’s prepetition state-law contract and fraud claims as core proceedings.

Shelly's, Inc. v. Food Concepts of Wisconsin, Inc. (In Re Shelly's Inc.) · filed 1989-02-27(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E), (b)(2)(O)

For the reasons set forth by the Court in United Security in rejecting arguments identical to those asserted by Shelly’s here, the Court hereby rules that this action may not be properly classified as a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (E), or (O).

Section 157(b)(3) bars a bankruptcy judge from finding a proceeding noncore solely because state law affects its resolution.

Bayless v. Crabtree Through Adams · filed 1989-12-04(b)(3)

In enacting section 157(b)(3), Congress wished to make express that Bankruptcy Judges were not to rely on the state-law content of proceedings alone in making their core-noncore determinations.

Section 157(b) does not give bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over state law abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims arising from a bad faith involuntary petition after the bankruptcy case is dismissed.

LaROCHE INC. v. BARNETT BANK OF SO. FLA. · filed 1995-09-20(b)

Neither section 157(b) nor section 1334(b) say anything about the kind of claims we face today. ... And so we are drawn to conclude that, because there is no express grant of exclusive jurisdiction for these claims to the bankruptcy court and no strong reason to suppose that Congress gave such power by implication, not to mention the cloud of unconstitutionality that such a construction might place on the 1984 amendments to the bankruptcy court provisions, the causes of action asserted here may be brought as ordinary common law actions in a competent state court.

Section 157(b)(3) allows a proceeding to be classified as core even when state law may affect its resolution.

TJN, Inc. v. Superior Container Corp. (In Re TJN, Inc.) · filed 1996-12-31(b)(3)

Because this litigation arose in a chapter 11 case and is related to the implementation of the plan of reorganization, it is a core proceeding even though it may be affected by state law.

Section 157(b)(3) does not make a proceeding non-core solely because state law supplies the substantive rule of decision.

Compton v. Walker (In Re Coral Petroleum, Inc.) · filed 2000-06-16(b)(3)

The statute, cited above, clearly provides that determination of core status is not made solely on the basis that state law provides the substantive rule of decision.

Section 157(b)(3) does not allow a proceeding to be classified as noncore solely because state law may affect its resolution.

Global Land, Inc. v. Mayor of Peekskill (In Re Karta Corp.) · filed 2003-07-10(b)(3)

The Court notes that the mere fact that plaintiffs’] claim raises an issue of state law, rather than a purely federal issue, does not preclude a finding that the adversary proceeding is core.

A prepetition contract claim is not a core proceeding when it invokes no title 11 right and could be asserted outside bankruptcy.

Medicalogic/Medscape, Inc. v. Amirana (In Re MSCP Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2004-09-10(b)(1)

The subject complaint is based upon an alleged failure to fulfill obligations owing under the pre-petition Note. Such an action is based on contract law, does not invoke a right provided by title 11, and could be asserted outside the context of the bankruptcy ease. The action is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b) does not treat a state-law suit that values a possible bankruptcy estate asset as a core proceeding.

Walton v. Tower Loan of Mississippi · filed 2004-09-28(b)

The present lawsuit is clearly not a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), and the court would also note that state law issues predominate heavily over any federal issues in this case. Indeed, the purpose of the present lawsuit is simply to place a value on the asset (i.e. plaintiffs’ cause of action) that defendants allege to be an asset of plaintiffs’ bankruptcy estate, and this valuation may be performed equally well in state court.

Third-party indemnity and contribution claims that can be asserted in state court are not core proceedings under § 157.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Murphy (In Re Selheimer & Co.) · filed 2005-01-20(b)

Because they involve claims which can be asserted in state court, they clearly would not be core.

Section 157 treats a prepetition aiding-and-abetting fiduciary duty claim as non-core when the debtor could bring it outside bankruptcy and it does not affect the restructuring of debtor-creditor relations.

In Re Sw Bach & Co. · filed 2010-03-10(b)

The Debtor could pursue this claim against AGI absent the bankruptcy, just as the Debtor in Mirant, 337 B.R. at 117-18, could. ... Accordingly, the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim here is non-core.

Section 157 treats a prepetition aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim as noncore when it can be pursued outside bankruptcy and does not arise from the debtor’s bankruptcy obligations.

Togut v. RBC Dain Correspondent Services (In re Bach) · filed 2010-03-10(b)

Accordingly, the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim here is non-core.

Section 157(b)(3) bars treating a proceeding as noncore solely because state law may affect its resolution.

Baker v. Simpson · filed 2010-07-30(b)(3)

The South-mark court properly noted that the fact that the “origin” of the claims was found in state law was “not dispositive.” ... Rather, the determinative issue is whether claims that appear to be based in state law are really an extension of the proceedings already before the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(3) bars determining that a proceeding is non-core solely because resolving it may involve state law.

German American Capital Corp. v. Oxley Development Co. (In re Oxley Development Co.) · filed 2013-05-16(b)(3)

In fact, Congress has specified that a “determination that a proceeding is not a core proceeding shall not be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by state law.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). Therefore, though this Court will necessarily look to state law when adjudicating this adversary proceeding, this fact alone cannot deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court hearing a nondischargeability proceeding to adjudicate the state law causes of action underlying a creditor’s claim.

TotalFacility, Inc. v. Brown (In re Brown) · filed 2016-08-30

As this Court has previously observed, this Court retains the authority to adjudicate in nondischargeability proceedings any state law causes of action that form the basis of a creditor’s claim.

Section 157(b)(3) bars finding a proceeding noncore solely because state law may affect its resolution.

Deutsche Oel & Gas S.A. v. Energy Capital Partners Mezzanine Opportunities Fund A, LP · filed 2020-09-30(b)(3)

“The fact that the origin of . . . claims [is] found in state law [is] not dispositive” with respect to whether a case is core or non-core. Baker, 613 F.3d at 350; see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) (“A determination that a proceeding is not a core proceeding shall not be made solely on the basis that its resolution may be affected by [s]tate law.”). ... Here, although ECP’s claims are grounded in state law, the Court finds that they are nonetheless “inseparable from the bankruptcy context” for a number of reasons.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify these third-party state-law claims against noncreditors as core proceedings.

East 38th Avenue Properties, LLC v. Miller · filed 2021-08-12(b)(2)

Wolf is correct that the issues raised in the Third Party Complaint are not core proceedings, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The same is true as to Carlton.

Section 157(b) defines core proceedings to include claims arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a bankruptcy case; state-law claims that exist outside bankruptcy are not core proceedings.

Faulkner v. Lane Gorman Trubitt, LLC · filed 2021-10-14(b)

These two categories of civil proceedings (“arises under” the Bankruptcy Code and “arises in” a bankruptcy case) are statutorily defined as “core” proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). ... None of the causes of action in the complaint are based on the Bankruptcy Code, and each would have an existence outside of bankruptcy. The Court concludes that the causes here are not within the Court’s “core” bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Section 157(b) does not make a claim a core proceeding solely because it may provide economic benefit to the bankruptcy estate.

Windhaven Top Insurance Holdings LLC · filed 2021-10-15(b)

While the claim “may provide economic benefit to the estate,”66 it does not render the matter “core;” this factor favors abstention.

Section 157(b)(2)'s catchall categories do not make an insurance coverage dispute a core proceeding merely because a bankruptcy trust brings it.

In re: TK Holdings, Inc. · filed 2023-06-30(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(O)

The Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the adversary proceeding is a non-core proceeding is consistent with the language of the statute and well supported by a long line of cases holding that an action by a debtor against its insurer is non-core.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats this lien dispute as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Dapec, Inc. v. Small Business Administration (In re MBA Poultry, L.L.C.) · filed 2002-05-30(b)(2)(K)

Since this case is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), we do not use the standard of review provided by state law.

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine an action seeking an injunction against a bankruptcy petition preparer as a core proceeding.

Demos v. Brown (In Re Graves) · filed 2002-05-30(b)(1)

Thus, we adhere to our position in Crowe and hold that a § 110© injunction action is a core proceeding to be heard and determined by a bankruptcy judge under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats a lien-priority dispute as a core bankruptcy proceeding, for which the reviewing court does not use a state-law standard of review.

Dapec, Inc. v. Small Business Administration · filed 2002-05-30(b)(2)(K)

Since this case is a "core" bankruptcy proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K), we do not use the standard of review provided by state law.

Section 157(b)(2)(L) treats confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

California v. PG & E Corp. (In Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co.) · filed 2002-06-14(b)(2)(L)

Like the filing of a bankruptcy petition generally, matters concerning confirmation of a plan of reorganization in a chapter 11 case go to the very essence of a bankruptcy court’s “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11” (see 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)), and, as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(L), plan confirmation is within the protected sphere of matters that the Ninth Circuit has held to be free from second-guessing by state courts.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) classifies turnover claims as core proceedings.

Kittay v. Landegger (In Re Hagerstown Fiber Ltd. Partnership) · filed 2002-04-26(b)(2)(E)

The turnover claim is core, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), and compelling arbitration of the trustee’s turnover claim would conflict with important policies of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(b)(2) treats claim objections, requests to recover trustee overpayments, and alleged systematic filing of inflated claims as core proceedings.

Kerney v. Capital One Financial Corp. (In Re Sims) · filed 2002-05-08(b)(2)

Like the class action in Noletto, the present adversary proceeding is a core proceeding because it concerns substantive bankruptcy issues which could only arise in the bankruptcy context: an objection to a claim, the requested turnover of over-payments by a chapter 13 trustee to a creditor, and the consideration of whether the creditor’s actions in systematically filing inflated claims constitute an abuse of the bankruptcy process.

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

Cadle Co. v. Leffingwell (In Re Leffingwell) · filed 2002-05-14(b)(2)(A)

Issues of venue are core matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) that concern the administration of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(K) treats proceedings determining the validity, extent, or priority of liens as core proceedings.

Energy Income Fund, L.P. v. Estes · filed 2002-04-03(b)(2)(K)

The adversary claims filed by EIF in bankruptcy court were “core proceedings” under the Bankruptcy Code. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K) (including “determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens” as “core”).

Section 157(b)(2)’s catchall provisions do not make a state law contract claim against a nondebtor a core proceeding if the claim fits none of the express categories.

McDowell Welding & Pipefitting, Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co. · filed 2002-01-28(b)(2)(A), (O)

If a state law contract claim asserted against a non-debtor does not fit within one of the express categories listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), it is not a core proceeding merely by virtue of the catchall provisions of § 157(b)(2)(A) or (O).

Section 157(b)(2) provides a nonexclusive list of core proceedings; the removed claims here were treated as non-core.

Thomson v. Able Supply Co. · filed 2002-01-04(b)(2)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) provides a nonexclusive list of those proceedings that are deemed to be core proceedings under the bankruptcy code. ... Because the Court agrees with the Removing Defendants that the removed claims are non-core matters, the Court treats them as such.

Section 157 allows bankruptcy courts to finally resolve core proceedings, including the referred claims alleging Bankruptcy Code violations here.

Donna Marie Walls, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2002-01-08

Both claims referred to the bankruptcy court allege a violation of the Bankruptcy Code; therefore, both are “core proceedings” under 28 U.S.C. § 157 and, as such, may be finally resolved by ... the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 treats a claim for damages after dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy petition as a core proceeding because the claim depends on bankruptcy law for its existence.

Glannon v. Carpenter (In Re Glannon) · filed 2000-02-09(b)

Section 303(i) proceedings clearly depend on bankruptcy law for their existence; they do not arise unless an involuntary bankruptcy petition is dismissed by the bankruptcy court. Thus, the court finds § 303(i) proceedings to be core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a garnishment proceeding to enforce a judgment a core bankruptcy proceeding.

A.M.S. Printing Corp. v. Wernick (In Re Wernick) · filed 1999-12-08(b)(2)

Because a garnishment enforcement proceeding is not a core proceeding, it does not “arise under” Title 11 or “arise in a case under” Title 11.

Section 157 lets bankruptcy judges hear and determine core proceedings and hear and recommend dispositions in non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case.

In Re O'Malley · filed 1999-10-22

Section 157 does not give bankruptcy judges full judicial power over all matters in which the district courts have jurisdiction under § 1334. With respect to proceedings other than the bankruptcy petition itself, § 157 allocates the jurisdiction created by § 1334 between “core” and “non-core” proceedings. Bankruptcy judges have authority to hear and determine core proceedings “arising under” Title 11 U.S.C. or “arising in” a case under Title 11, and have limited authority to hear and recommend disposition as to non-core proceedings “otherwise related to a case” under Title 11.

Section 157(b)(2)'s specific categories of core proceedings do not encompass probate proceedings.

Babakitis v. Robino (In Re Robino) · filed 1999-09-30(b)(2)

A nonexclusive list of “arising in” or “arising under” proceedings is published in subsection (b)(2) of section 157, but there is, not surprisingly, no reference to pending probate proceedings, and none of the specific items listed could reasonably be construed as encompassing such proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)'s categories for claim allowance and discharge do not cover a state law suit to recover property or damages that decides neither issue.

Glass v. Prcin · filed 1999-09-08(b)(2)

Yet, the proceeding before us was not one to determine whether the bankruptcy court should discharge Glass, as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. §§ 523 and 727 and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(I) and (J). Nor was it one to determine whether Prcin had a claim against his ex-girlfriend’s bankruptcy estate, as contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 502 and 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

A trustee’s unjust enrichment and turnover claims can be non-core proceedings under § 157(b)(2).

Hankin v. Auxiliary of the Winsted Memorial Hospital (In re Winsted Memorial Hospital) · filed 1999-07-23(b)(2)

The court concludes that the Second Count (unjust enrichment) of the complaint is clearly non-core. And, although the question as to the First Count (turnover) may be less clear, the court, in accordance with and following its analysis of the core/non-core distinction in Century Brass Products, Inc. v. Millard Metals Service Center, Inc. (In re Century Brass), 58 B.R. 838 (Bankr.D.Conn.1986), and the argument of the Auxiliary, concludes that the First Count is non-core as well.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in a core proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court in an otherwise related proceeding.

Noblet v. Reproduction Systems, Inc. (In re Reproduction Systems, Inc.) · filed 1991-05-29(b)(1), (c)(1)

With the agreement of all parties, this is a core proceeding as to debtor RSI, and is a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11 as to defendant Cash. Therefore, as to RSI this Court is authorized to enter an order directing that final judgment be entered (28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)). As to Cash, this Court is authorized to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court, which is authorized to enter any final order or judgment (28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)).

Section 157(c)(1) covers state law claims related to a bankruptcy case when their outcome could affect the estate or the debtor’s reorganization.

Golden Distributors, Ltd. v. Reiss (In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.) · filed 1991-06-11(c)(1)

There is no question that the remaining Counts in the debtor’s complaint do not involve core proceedings, as expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), but are otherwise related to a case under title 11, as noted in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). These state law claims for tortious interference and breach of contract are related to the debtor’s title 11 case because the outcome of these related proceedings could have an effect on the bankruptcy estate and could alter the debt- or’s options with regard to its reorganizational relief.

Section 157(b)(3) permits a bankruptcy judge to determine that a proceeding is noncore and transfer it to the district court.

Wayzata Bank & Trust Co. v. a & B Farms (In Re Victoria Co. of Minneapolis) · filed 1984-09-04(b)(3)

Having determined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) (1984) that this proceeding is not a core proceeding, it is transferred to the District Court.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a debtor’s prebankruptcy state common-law action a core proceeding when it is related only peripherally to the bankruptcy.

Morse Electric Co. v. Logicon, Inc. (In Re Morse Electric Co.) · filed 1985-03-05(b)(2)(O)

It is clear that this proceeding falls squarely into the “noncore” category as a prebankruptcy state common-law action related only peripherally to the bankruptcy itself.

Section 157(b) does not classify a post-confirmation trademark injunction suit as a core proceeding when it has no relation to estate administration or another core category.

Matter of Pan American School of Travel Inc. · filed 1985-03-07(b)

The debtor’s assertion that Pan Am’s suit is a core proceeding cannot be sustained. That action, seeking to enjoin a post-confirmation debtor from infringing its trademarks and from unfairly competing with it bears no relation to the administration of the bankruptcy estate or to any of the other categories of core proceedings contained in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).

Section 157(a) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding only if its outcome could conceivably affect the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Dickenson Lines, Inc. · filed 1985-03-06(a)

The usual test for determining whether a civil proceeding is related to a bankruptcy proceeding is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.

Section 157(b)(3) requires a claim that a proceeding is non-core and beyond the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to be raised initially in bankruptcy court when no exception applies.

Central National Bank v. Kwak · filed 1985-05-03(b)(3)

Since neither provision covers the plaintiffs’ “Creditor’s Bill,” any claim that this is a non-core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction must be made initially before that court, under § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(b)(3) gives the bankruptcy judge authority to determine whether a proceeding is core.

Ellwood City Iron & Wire Co. v. Flakt, Inc. Environmental Systems Division (In Re Ellwood City Iron & Wire Co.) · filed 1985-07-31(b)(3)

Since the powers of the bankruptcy judge are determined by the nature of the proceeding, it is obvious the bankruptcy judge should be empowered to make a determination of whether or not a proceeding is a core proceeding. Subsection (b)(3) of 28 U.S.C. § 157 grants this authority to the bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(b)(2) permits a proceeding with both core and non-core aspects to be treated as core when the core aspects heavily predominate and the non-core aspect is insignificant.

Blackman v. Seton (In Re Blackman) · filed 1985-09-30(b)(2)

For I believe that, when a proceeding is in part a core proceeding and in part non-core, the courts may determine that the entire proceeding is core if the core aspect heavily predominates and the non-core aspect is insignificant.

Section 157(b)(3) allows a bankruptcy court to determine that an insurance interpleader is a non-core proceeding.

Midland Insurance Co. v. Plescia (In re Plescia) · filed 1985-11-20(b)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, it was determined by this Court that this is a non-core proceeding.

State law contract claims that do not fall within a specific listed core category are related proceedings, even if they arguably fit the broad core categories.

In Re Castlerock Properties, Debtor. Piombo Corporation, a California Corporation v. Castlerock Properties, a California · filed 1986-01-23(b)(2)

Accordingly, we hold that state law contract claims that do not specifically fall within the categories of core proceedings enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B)-(N) are related proceedings under § 157(e) even if they arguably fit within the literal wording of the two catch-all provisions, sections § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to hear non-core proceedings related to a Title 11 case.

Rosen-Novak Auto Co. v. Honz · filed 1986-02-12(c)(1)

However, we believe that this action does fall into the category of non-core proceedings related to a case under Title 11 and was properly before the bankruptcy court under its powers set forth in Sec. 157(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(3) requires a party to raise a core proceeding objection before the bankruptcy judge; failure to do so waives the issue on appeal.

Rainey v. International Harvester Credit Corp. · filed 1986-03-13(b)(3)

While the court could find no cases interpreting this provision, nor did the parties cite any cases, this court’s view of § 157(b)(3)’s requirement that the party’s motion must be “timely”, means that the party’s failure to raise the issue before the bankruptcy judge results in waiver of the issue. Therefore, plaintiff may not raise this issue on appeal here.

Section 157(b)(2)(O) does not make a debtor’s disputed insurance contract claim a core proceeding merely because the claim could add assets to the estate.

R.I. Lithograph Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In Re R.I. Lithograph Corp.) · filed 1986-04-14(b)(2)(O)

To our regret, we are unable to agree that RILC’s action against Aetna seeking reimbursement and/or indemnification for losses allegedly covered under a contract of insurance is a core proceeding.

Section 157 does not permit a bankruptcy judge to hear a nondebtor’s tax dispute that is unrelated to the bankruptcy case and cannot affect the estate.

Gennari v. United States Department of Treasury (In Re Educators Investment Corp.) · filed 1986-04-24

The bankruptcy judge does not, however, have jurisdiction to hear an unrelated proceeding to determine the tax liability of a nondebtor or to enjoin the assessment of or collection of a tax against a nondebtor where the determination or assessment does not involve any issue of bankruptcy law, does not involve property of the estate or of the debtor, and could not have any effect on the bankruptcy estate.

Section 157(c)(1) authorizes a bankruptcy court to hear non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case.

Greene v. Creative Equity Corp. (In re Hoffman Advertising Group, Inc.) · filed 1986-06-30(c)(1)

In addition, the bankruptcy court is authorized to hear non-core related matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). This action is clearly within the scope of that provision as recognized by the fact that the defendants have argued only that this claim is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) reaches a related proceeding only when the dispute is connected to the administration of the bankruptcy case.

Elscint, Inc. v. First Wisconsin Financial Corp. (In Re Xonics, Inc.) · filed 1986-06-03(c)(1)

Elscint’s motion is not connected to the administration of the Chapter 11 case concerning the Xonics Group. Reorganization can be accomplished without resolution of this dispute. The outcome of the dispute between Elscint and FWFC does not in any way affect the administration of the bankruptcy proceeding.

A pre-petition claim that could have been brought in state or district court and is only peripherally related to the bankruptcy case is a non-core, related proceeding.

Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (In Re Guenther) · filed 1986-10-07(b)(2)

The Court finds that the instant adversary proceeding is a non-core proceeding, since it is a pre-petition cause of action which could have been brought in the district or state court, and is related only peripherally to the bankruptcy case itself. Thus, it is also a “related” proceeding.

Section 157(a) covers proceedings to collect a debtor’s secured receivables when those receivables remain property of the bankruptcy estate.

Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc. v. A.J. Hollander Co. · filed 1986-10-20(a)

This firmly demonstrates that the liquidation of secured receivables is “related to” the bankruptcy and comes within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction when the petition is filed.

Section 157(c) covers a related non-core proceeding when its outcome could increase the bankruptcy estate available to creditors.

Doyle v. Mellon Bank (East) National Ass'n (In Re Globe Parcel Service, Inc.) · filed 1987-02-23(c)

This court has no hesitation, however, in characterizing the trustee’s complaint as a related non-core proceeding authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... The potential for such a result qualifies the trustee’s adversary action as a related non-core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) permits a bankruptcy court to determine on its own motion whether a proceeding is core or related to a bankruptcy case.

Goldberg v. Weichert (In re Timberline Energy Inc.) · filed 1987-02-24(b)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), the Court has determined on its own motion that the present adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding, but rather is one otherwise related to a case under Title 11 of the United States Code.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding related to a Chapter 11 case when its outcome could affect the debtor’s estate.

In Re Dogpatch · filed 1987-02-02(c)(1)

We need not rely, however, on either the consent to jurisdiction or jurisdiction under core proceeding because the bankruptcy court properly held that the S & Ls' counterclaim against DPI and third-party claim against the Odoms were related to a case under chapter 11 and thus were within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(1) covers a dispute over abandoned property when its resolution affects other creditors' recoveries under the reorganization plan.

Elscint, Inc. v. First Wisconsin Financial Corp. (In re Xonics · filed 1987-02-26(c)(1)

We conclude that effects on other creditors do matter. If the payments to creditors other than Elscint and First Wisconsin under the plan of reorganization depend on the disposition of the competing claims to the $280,000, then the district court has jurisdiction under Sec. 157(c)(1), and if not, not.

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court; that process does not justify remand merely because district court review may follow.

Beebe International, Inc. v. French American Banking Corp. (In Re Wedtech Corp.) · filed 1987-04-06(c)(1)

Also of no merit is Beebe’s argument that, since this is a related proceeding, this Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), may make only findings of fact and conclusions of law for submission to the district court, which may then conduct a de novo review, implying that it would be more expedient to let the district court hear the matter from the start. But this related proceeding process was contemplated by Congress in enacting 28 U.S.C. § 157. This Court has the “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise the jurisdiction given it.

Section 157(b)(2) treats a disputed contract formation and breach claim as a related proceeding when its connection to adjusting the debtor-creditor relationship is tenuous.

International Building Components, Inc. v. Pacific Development Corp. (In Re International Building Components, Inc.) · filed 1987-05-29(b)(2)

As stated previously, the action presently before the Court will revolve around a determination of contract formation. If a contract were found to exist, this Court would be asked to determine whether IBC was the party in breach; these questions bear a tenuous relationship to the adjustment of the debtor-creditor relationship. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(0). We find that this adversary proceeding is related in nature.

Section 157(c)(1) permits related-to jurisdiction only when a dispute affects the bankruptcy estate or payments to other creditors.

Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,803 in the Matter of Richard A. Kubly, Debtors. Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Re · filed 1987-05-11(c)(1)

The dispute here does not concern property of the Kublys’ estate and cannot affect their other creditors. As a result, none of the grounds of jurisdiction established by 28 U.S.C. § 157 is available.

Section 157 does not provide bankruptcy jurisdiction over a dispute between creditors when it concerns no property of the estate and cannot affect other creditors.

Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations v. Marine Bank Monroe (In re Kubly) · filed 1987-05-11(c)(1)

The dispute here does not concern property of the Kublys’ estate and cannot affect their other creditors. As a result, none of the grounds of jurisdiction established by 28 U.S.C. § 157 is available.

Section 157 does not bring an exempt Truth-In-Lending Act claim before the bankruptcy court when the claim is not closely related to the bankruptcy proceedings.

Christy v. Heights Finance Corp. · filed 1987-05-18

Moreover, the claim is not so closely related to the proceedings in the bankruptcy that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 157(b)(3) assigns the determination of whether a proceeding is core to the bankruptcy judge.

Consolidated Lewis Investment Corp. v. First National Bank of Jefferson Parish · filed 1987-06-16(b)(3)

Accordingly, the Court finds the question of whether the instant action is a core proceeding must be decided by the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Although plaintiffs have asked this Court to remand this action or in the alternative, abstain, to do so would deprive the bankruptcy court of a § 157(b)(3) determination.

Section 157 treats bankruptcy causes of action and proceedings needed to administer debtor-creditor relationships as core; a state-law claim that could add to the estate is related rather than core.

Schaffler v. McDowell National Bank (In Re Yobe) · filed 1987-07-10(b)

After reviewing the representative list in § 157(b), we find that core matters are those which either involve a statutorily-created bankruptcy cause of action, such as recovery of preferential transfers and avoidance of liens; or are required for the orderly reorganization of the debtor-creditor relationship, such as turnover actions and determinations of secured status. ... We find, therefore, that as the case at bar sounds very much like Marathon, the Trustees’ Complaint is not a core proceeding. However, this action against McDowell, if successful, would mean significant sums available to the estate. This provides more than sufficient nexus to hold that this action is a related proceeding.

A party waives a challenge to whether a proceeding is core by failing to raise the issue timely before the bankruptcy judge.

Rath Packing Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union 167 (In Re Rath Packing Co.) · filed 1987-06-19(b)(3)

This court agrees with the view of the district court in Rainey v. Intern. Harvester Credit Corp., 59 B.R. 987, 990 (N.D.Ill.1986), that Rath’s failure to raise this issue before the bankruptcy judge constitutes a waiver of the issue since such a motion must be “timely” under the statute.

Section 157(a) and (c) give a bankruptcy court authority over referred related proceedings, but that authority does not reach a third-party claim whose resolution would have no effect on the bankruptcy case.

Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc. v. Certified Brokerage Sys., Inc. (In Re Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc.) · filed 1987-06-24(a), (c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and (c), this Court is granted similar jurisdiction upon reference by the district court. ... The Court concludes that in these circumstances the resolution of Certified’s claim against AT & T would have no effect upon the Maislin bankruptcy, and therefore this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the third party complaint.

Section 157(c)(1) permits bankruptcy courts to hear related proceedings even when they are not core proceedings.

Ris v. Coppotelli (In re Colby Construction Corp.) · filed 1987-07-10(c)(1)

That assertion failed to account for the jurisdiction vested in the Bankruptcy Courts to hear related proceedings as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Since the moving party did not address the proposition of whether the proceedings were related, the motion had to be denied.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding when its outcome will affect property of the bankruptcy estate.

Freudenmann v. Drainage District 2 (In Re Freudenmann) · filed 1987-07-27(c)(1)

It appears that the disposition of Freudenmann’s action will affect the property of her estate, since the actions or omissions of the District may have affected a source of income of the estate. Therefore, because this is an action related to a case under Title 11 this Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) does not extend bankruptcy court jurisdiction to separate fiduciary liabilities of a debtor’s directors and employees merely because they relate to the debtor’s pension plans.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1987-08-20(b)(2)(A)

Similarly, the separate fiduciary liabilities of LTV’s directors/employees are also outside the scope of the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction.

Section 157 does not cover a purportedly related proceeding when its effect on the bankruptcy estate or its administration is speculative rather than likely to be direct or substantive.

Oregon Ex Rel. Roberts v. Mushroom King, Inc. · filed 1987-08-25(c)(1)

I hold that CIC has failed to carry its burden of proof that the state’s statutory claim is likely to have a direct or substantive impact on the bankruptcy estate or its administration. I find that the impact of this case’s resolution on the bankruptcy estate is speculative.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a related non-core proceeding but prevents the judge from issuing final orders in it.

Marr Broadcasting Co. v. Shamrock Broadcasting of Texas, Inc. (In Re Marr Broadcasting Co.) · filed 1987-10-06(c)(1)

This court concludes that the lawsuit pending before it as between plaintiff Marr and defendant Shamrock is a related non-core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 157. Therefore, this court may preside over the proceeding but only may not issue final orders concerning the pending adversary proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy judge to determine whether an adversary proceeding is core or non-core; a final judgment entered without that determination must be invalidated.

Marill Alarm Systems, Inc. v. Equity Funding Corp. (In Re Marill Alarm Systems, Inc.) · filed 1987-12-01(b)(3)

It is a critical and mandatory duty of the bankruptcy judge to determine the nature of an adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3). If the bankruptcy judge enters a final judgment without having made such a determination, it must be invalidated.

Section 157(b)(2) does not classify a trustee’s action to collect accounts receivable as a core proceeding.

Stewart v. Strasburger (In Re Astrocade, Inc.) · filed 1987-12-04(b)(2)

Based on the foregoing, and adopting the view that a restrictive and narrow reading of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) is constitutionally required in light of the Marathon decision, this Court finds that the plaintiff’s cause of action to collect on accounts receivable is not a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(1) does not cover a contract and RICO complaint as arising under title 11; after dismissal of the bankruptcy case, the complaint does not arise in a case under title 11 either.

Walton v. Federal Land Bank (In Re Walton) · filed 1987-12-08(b)(1)

Debtors’ complaint seeks recovery for defendants’ breaches of contract and RICO violations. This is not a proceeding arising under title 11. Neither is this a proceeding arising in a case under title 11 as a result of the dismissal of Debtors’ case pursuant to this opinion and order.

Section 157 treats a proceeding to collect a bona fide disputed prepetition account receivable as non-core.

Commercial Heat Treating of Dayton, Inc. v. Atlas Industries, Inc. (In Re Commercial Heat Treating of Dayton, Inc.) · filed 1987-12-09(b)(2)

The court concludes that a proceeding to collect a prepetition account receivable that is subject to a BONAFIDE dispute is a non-core proceeding.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when its outcome could conceivably affect the debtor's estate, even contingently.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Titan Energy · filed 1988-01-19(c)(1)

Yet, even a proceeding which portends a mere contingent or tangential effect on a debtor's estate meets the broad jurisdictional test articulated in Pacor. For the reasons set forth in section B, we determine that the resolution of Counts I and II could conceivably have an impact on Titan's estate. Thus, we conclude that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to hear National Union's non-core, but related claims.

Section 157 does not permit a nondebtor to invoke bankruptcy court jurisdiction directly, but the nondebtor’s rights may be adjudicated in a proceeding brought by a discharged debtor.

Goodman v. National Labor Relations Board (In Re Goodman) · filed 1988-01-25(a)

Further, although non-debtors are unable to invoke the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts directly, the rights of such non-debtors may be successfully adjudicated in proceedings commenced by discharged debtors.

Section 157(b)(3) assigns the bankruptcy court the initial determination of whether a proceeding is core.

Williams v. Heller Financial, Inc. · filed 1988-01-26(b)(3)

First, as to the core proceeding argument, the Court repeats what it wrote in CLIC-LP: it is the bankruptcy court that must first make the § 157(b)(3) determination of whether the action is a core proceeding or not.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core related proceeding but requires it to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for a decision.

Littles v. Lieberman (In Re Littles) · filed 1988-02-12(c)(1)

Nevertheless, as our decision in Windsor, following the clear language of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), points out, 67 B.R. at 673, this conclusion does not mean that we cannot “hear” the proceeding, but only that we cannot “hear and determine” it, and thus must submit our result to the district court in the form of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Section 157(c)(1) governs an otherwise related proceeding when a debtor’s state-law claim seeks to offset a creditor’s claim without disputing its validity.

Chiodo v. NBC Bank-Brooks Field (In Re Chiodo) · filed 1988-06-08(c)(1)

Being unopposed, the report and recommendation are hereby adopted by the Court pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9033. ... Thus, the Court concludes that this proceeding is not a proceeding to allow or disallow a claim against the estate as that phrase is used in 28 U.S.C. sec. 157(b)(2)(B). The Court concludes that this is an otherwise related proceeding governed by section 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings and conclusions for final determination by the district court.

Crossley v. Lieberman · filed 1988-07-13(c)(1)

1. This proceeding is a non-core, related matter. Therefore, it was properly heard by the bankruptcy judge who submitted his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to me for final determination.

Section 157, together with section 1334, does not impose chapter-specific jurisdictional limits when a debtor is eligible to proceed under at least one Bankruptcy Code chapter.

Rudd v. Laughlin · filed 1988-07-26

Similarly, the general grant of jurisdiction over Title 11 cases in sections 157 and 1334 does not suggest the chapter-specific limitations of Wulf in cases in which debtors are entitled to proceed under at least one chapter of the bankruptcy code.

Section 157(c)(1) covers a debtor’s prepetition cause of action that becomes part of the bankruptcy estate as a related proceeding.

Littles v. Lieberman · filed 1988-09-07(c)(1)

Under these tests, the cause of action of Littles in this matter, arising as it did before the filing, is clearly a part of the estate and therefore a related matter within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, but requires the district court to enter the final judgment.

Reed v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (In Re Reed) · filed 1988-10-17(c)(1)

So long as the proceeding is related in some way, “could conceivably have any effect” upon the debtor’s estate, then it can be heard Hi bankruptcy court. Whether a proceeding is core or non-core affects the power of the bankruptcy judge to issue a final order or judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d)(1), but not the ability to hear the proceeding.

Section 157(b)(3) authorizes a bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core or related, including when jurisdiction depends on whether disputed property belongs to the estate.

Knopfler v. Schraiber (In Re Schraiber) · filed 1989-03-22(b)(3)

This power is also recognized by statute, at 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3): ... A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine whether disputed property is property of the estate, and thus to decide whether the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over such property to order its sale.

Section 157(b)(3) requires the bankruptcy judge to determine whether a proceeding is core or related; failure to do so required reversal of the jurisdictional dismissal.

In Re Wefco, Inc. · filed 1989-03-28(b)(3)

Because the bankruptcy court failed to determine whether the Proceeding was core or related the bankruptcy court’s order of dismissal must be reversed and the case remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Section 157(b)(3) permits a bankruptcy judge’s treatment of a proceeding as core to be inferred from the record despite the absence of an explicit ruling.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of International Distribution Centers, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc. (In Re Inte · filed 1989-04-13(b)(3)

Although the Bankruptcy Judge did not make an explicit ruling that the application and hearing before ... him was a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3), the full record clearly supports the conclusion that he treated it as such.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding only if it is related to a bankruptcy case; a creditor’s collection suit that cannot affect the estate falls outside that authority.

First National Bank of Maryland v. United States Wall Corp. (In Re Incor, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-07(c)(1)

As a non-core, unrelated proceeding, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 157 limits a bankruptcy court’s authority to adjudicate matrimonial matters to those specifically covered by the section.

Goldberg v. Hilsen (In Re Hilsen) · filed 1989-06-08

Indeed, to the extent that the state matrimonial court adjudicates personal rights, custodial relationships, and property entitlements, not only is there no overriding compelling federal question, but except to the extent specifically enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 157, the bankruptcy court clearly has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters.

Section 157(c)(1) covers a noncore dispute between nondebtors when its outcome could affect funds available for the debtor’s reorganization plan.

Kolinsky v. Russ (In Re Kolinsky) · filed 1989-06-08(c)(1)

Under these circumstances, a civil proceeding between the nondebtor parties involving a rescission of the contract which will produce the proceeds to fund the sole shareholder’s plan of reorganization has a significant connection with the bankruptcy case and is related to such case within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) covers a noncore proceeding against nondebtors when an unconditional indemnity obligation means a judgment could affect the bankruptcy estate.

Philippe v. Shape, Inc. · filed 1989-07-18(c)(1)

Absent such conditions, the Court finds that the outcome of Plaintiffs suit against the Gelardis could conceivably have an effect upon the Shape bankruptcy estate. By virtue of the apparently unconditional duty to indemnify, a judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this action would automatically result in indemnification liability on the part of Shape. This, in turn, would necessarily affect the administration of the Shape bankruptcy estate, as some part of the estate otherwise owing to existing creditors would be susceptible to being diverted to meet this indemnity obligation. Therefore, under the Pacor definition adopted by this Court in Omni Hotels, the proceedings are related as the term is used in 28 U.S.C. section 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) broadly covers proceedings that affect the assets of a bankruptcy estate or the funds available for distribution.

Bird v. Crown Convenience (In re NWFX, Inc.) · filed 1989-08-01(c)(1)

We have no trouble concluding that this case is related to NWFX’s bankruptcy for purposes of bankruptcy jurisdiction. This action clearly will impact the assets of the bankruptcy estate and the funds available for distribution in the bankruptcy. Accordingly the dispute is within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding only if it is related to a bankruptcy case.

Inganamort v. New York State Electric & Gas Co. (In Re P.D.S. Development Corp.) · filed 1989-08-17(c)

In view of the fact that the plaintiff’s action to recover money from Electric is not a core proceeding, it must be “otherwise related to a case under title 11” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) in order to sustain subject matter jurisdiction in this bankruptcy court.

Section 157(b)(3) requires a bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core even when neither party contests core status.

In Re BTS, Inc. · filed 1989-09-11(b)(3)

Neither party has contested the issue of whether the matter before the Court is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). This does not relieve the Court from its obligation to determine this issue under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a related proceeding because of its nexus to the debtor’s bankruptcy case; dismissal of that case generally ends the related proceeding.

In Re Ravick Corp. · filed 1989-08-30(c)(1)

This is particularly true of adversary proceedings which are "related” to the bankruptcy case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) since the related proceeding can only be heard by a bankruptcy court because of its nexus to the debtor’s bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2) treats actions to recover prepetition debts as non-core proceedings, while actions to collect postpetition debts may be core proceedings.

St. George Island, Ltd. v. Pelham · filed 1989-08-30(b)(2)

Based on the above discussion, this court adopts the rationale of those cases which distinguish between actions to recover debts arising prepetition as non-core versus actions to collect debts which arise postpet-ition as core proceedings. ... Accordingly, we find that the instant proceeding is a non-core proceeding in which this Court is not empowered to enter final judgment absent consent of the parties.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding only if it is related to a bankruptcy case; a claim that cannot affect the estate or other creditors falls outside that authority.

Ziglin v. Peterson (In Re Peterson) · filed 1989-08-25(c)(1)

Finally, the bankruptcy court may hear noncore proceedings that are “related to” a bankruptcy case and, unless the parties have consented to entry of a final order by the bankruptcy court, may make recommended findings to the district court for a final order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Unless a proceeding fits under one of these specified categories, it cannot be heard by the bankruptcy court. ... In short, this claim for indemnification cannot be considered “related to” the case, and the bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction over it.

Section 157(a) permits the bankruptcy court to hear a motion to enjoin enforcement of a judgment against nondebtors when enforcement could conceivably affect administration of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re American Hardwoods, Inc., Debtor. American Hardwoods, Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corporation · filed 1989-09-15(a)

We conclude that Deutsche’s enforcement of the judgment against the Keelers “could conceivably” affect the administration of American’s plan. ... Sections 1334(b) and 157(a) therefore confer on the bankruptcy court subject matter jurisdiction over American’s motion for a permanent injunction against Deutsche.

Section 157 requires a bankruptcy court to determine whether a proceeding is core or related; a debtor’s personal claim is neither when its outcome cannot affect the bankruptcy estate or debtor-creditor relations.

Treadway v. United Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Treadway) · filed 1990-03-29(b)(3)

Debtor’s cause of action is non-core and non-related. We dismiss for lack of subject mattér jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding if it is related to a Title 11 case.

Roger J. Au & Son, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (In Re Roger J. Au & Son, Inc.) · filed 1990-10-29(c)(1)

If a matter does not fall within the parameters of a core proceeding, it may still be heard by the bankruptcy judge as a “non-core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) if it is related to a case under Title 11.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core related proceeding only if its outcome could affect the bankruptcy estate.

Golding v. First Bank of Whiting · filed 1991-02-06(c)(1)

As noted above, the appellants’ claim for attorney fees from assets abandoned by R.F.I. and liquidated by the secured creditor could not affect the bankruptcy estate or any other creditor. For this reason, the dispute presented in the appellants’ complaint is not a non-core, related proceeding over which the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core related proceeding but requires it to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Luciano v. Maggio · filed 1992-03-30(c)(1)

28 U.S.C. § 157(a) thus provides that a bankruptcy court may hear related matters, but that if it does, it may only “submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court....” (see § 157[c][l]).

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case when its outcome affects the debtor’s liabilities and the distribution of estate property to creditors.

Carver v. Brecher (In Re Carver) · filed 1992-09-02(c)

The action is a non-core proceeding directly related to Carver’s bankruptcy case under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). The outcome of this proceeding substantially affects Carver’s liabilities and the allocation of property of his estate in bankruptcy to creditors.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for final judgment.

White v. Brooks Bros. (In Re Lyons Transportation Lines, Inc.) · filed 1993-01-12(c)(1)

Finding that the matter is non-core does not result in dismissal of the Complaint. The Bankruptcy Court retains jurisdiction over related matters under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The within action is clearly related. Any recovery by the Trustee would augment the estate.