28 U.S.C. § 157

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

In Re FRG · filed 1990-06-04(b)(2)(G)

The present matter is a core proceeding since it involves a motion to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157 treats motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may hear and determine.

Arnold Development, Inc. v. Collins (In Re Collins) · filed 1990-08-28(b)(2)(G)

A “motion to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay” is a “core proceeding” arising under Title 11 of the United States Code which the bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

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

Brizendine v. Humboldt Express, Inc. (In Re Brown Transport Truckload, Inc.) · filed 1990-09-14(b)(2)(G)

The list of core proceedings found in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) includes “motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) (1990), such as the one filed by Humboldt.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) covers automatic-stay matters as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine, including when the federal government is involved.

Nichols v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Nichols) · filed 1992-07-08(b)(2)(G)

The Court rejects this argument. A bankruptcy court clearly has jurisdiction over matters involving the automatic stay, one of the fundamental protections of bankruptcy. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(1) gives bankruptcy courts authority to decide abandonment proceedings as core matters.

In re Thompson · filed 1994-11-29(b)(1)

Finally, on the jurisdictional question, it is established that the Bankruptcy Court has dispositive jurisdiction over core matters, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and that proceedings surrounding abandonment are core matters. ... It follows that the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction to take the action it did is patent.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may hear and determine.

In re Levine · filed 1996-08-05(b)(2)(G)

Bankruptcy courts may only hear and determine "core proceedings" arising under the Bankruptcy Code. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1); Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1497 (9th Cir.1995). "Core proceedings include ... motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay." 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to consider Calumet's motion for relief from the automatic stay.

Section 157(b) treats proceedings to recover damages for automatic stay violations or to enjoin further violations as core proceedings.

Tipton v. Adkins (In Re Tipton) · filed 2000-02-07(b)

The first three categories of jurisdiction are denominated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) as “core proceedings.” It is well settled that actions to recover damages for stay violations pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) and to enjoin further violations are core proceedings.

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy court to determine questions concerning the scope of the automatic stay.

Ochs v. Simon (In Re First Central Financial Corp.) · filed 2001-11-06(b)(2)(A), (G)

Questions concerning the scope of the automatic stay are appropriately determined by a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(A), (G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats proceedings for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In Re AvCentral, Inc. · filed 2003-02-18(b)(2)(G)

This contested matter is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to terminate, annul, or modify an automatic stay.

United States v. Vilus · filed 2005-09-08(b)(2)(G)

Only bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay.

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

Martens v. Countrywide Home Loans (In Re Martens) · filed 2005-10-03(b)(2)(G)

A motion to “terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay” is a core proceeding.

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

In Re Parker · filed 2006-01-04(b)(2)(G)

This application is analogous to a motion to terminate, annul or modify the automatic stay, and the determination is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(2)(G) assigns automatic stay violation proceedings to the bankruptcy court, even though it expressly lists only motions to terminate, annul, or modify the stay.

Gecker v. Gierczyk (In Re Glenn) · filed 2006-06-07(b)(2)(G)

That Congress has assigned the section 362(h)(1) cause of action to this court appears reasonably clear. Section 157(b)(2)(G) of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.) defines core matters to include “motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.” Although motions to enforce the stay are not listed, the omission does not appear significant.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) gives bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.

Asset Data Corp. v. Massaro · filed 2006-04-21(b)(2)(G)

Only a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) classifies motions for relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

In re: Smith v. · filed 2007-07-10(b)(2)(G)

There is no indication that the Debtors at any time asked the bankruptcy court for such a determination, and motions for relief from the automatic stay are expressly core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats a motion to impose the automatic stay as a core proceeding because its list of stay motions is inclusive.

In Re Benefield · filed 2010-09-14(b)(2)(G)

Strictly speaking, a motion to impose the stay is none of the above, but the term "includes”, and a dollop of common sense, provides sufficient reason to conclude that this proceeding is core.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy courts to grant relief from the automatic stay.

Owens v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC (In Re Owens) · filed 2013-04-29(b)(1), (b)(2)(G)

Although Owens contends on appeal that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to grant GMAC relief from the automatic stay, the bankruptcy court clearly had statutory authority to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(G).

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

Buczek v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2021-02-17(b)(2)(G)

Bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction to issue stay relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)-(b). 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) specifies that core proceedings include “motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.”

A motion to retroactively annul the automatic stay is a core proceeding that may be referred to a bankruptcy court.

Marguerite Potter · filed 2021-09-30(b)(2)(G)

A motion to retroactively annul the stay is a “core” proceeding, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G), and thus may be referred to this Court as a “proceeding arising under Title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).

Section 157 treats rights arising from a violation of the automatic stay as a core matter because they are substantive rights created by the Bankruptcy Code.

Bruecks v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr Cooper · filed 2023-07-12

Although a violation of the automatic stay is not specifically designated as a core proceeding under § 157, any rights arising from a violation of the automatic stay are substantive rights created by the Bankruptcy Code and are thus quintessentially core matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) makes motions to modify the automatic stay core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may decide by order.

In re Robinson · filed 2017-12-04(b)(2)(G)

Motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay are core proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code, in which the bankruptcy court is empowered to enter orders.

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

Angela Renae Smith · filed 2024-01-18(b)(2)(G)

This Court further concludes that this matter is a “core” bankruptcy proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G).

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core preference action when no constitutional impediment prevents it.

Pantazelos v. Benjamin (In re Pantazelos) · filed 2016-01-07(b)(1)

However, in this case, the preference suit is core and Defendant has shown no constitutional impediment preventing this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Stem.

Section 157 treats proceedings to avoid or recover preferential or fraudulent transfers as core proceedings; a committee pursuing such a proceeding is not bound by a contractual forum selection clause if the proceeding is not inextricably intertwined with non-core matters.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Transpacific Corp. (In Re Commodore International, Ltd.) · filed 1999-12-15(b)(2)(F) and (H)

However, a proceeding to avoid or recover assets that a debtor transfers either fraudulently or preferentially is within our core subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H). A debtor-in-possession or trustee, or by implication a committee whose authority derives from them, is not bound by a forum selection clause in an agreement provided the litigation at issue amounts to a core proceeding and is not inextricably intertwined with non-core matters.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) gives bankruptcy judges power to hear and determine preference proceedings.

Harstad v. First American Bank (In Re Harstad) · filed 1993-06-30(b)(2)(F)

Congress has also expressly granted me the power to hear and determine “[proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

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

Tamposi v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (In Re Tamposi Family Investment Properties) · filed 1993-07-14(b)(2)(F)

A debtor’s adversary proceeding to determine, avoid, or recover an alleged preference is a core proceeding arising under title 11 and is therefore squarely within this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

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

Lingley v. Fastener House (In Re Acme-Dunham, Inc.) · filed 1984-12-21(b)(2)(F)

Proceedings to recover preferential transfers are classified as core proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). The Court concludes that it does in fact have jurisdiction in this case.

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

Hopper v. United States (In Re Conard) · filed 1984-09-12(b)(2)(F)

The instant proceeding is a “core proceeding” to determine, avoid, or recover a preference. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a debtor’s action to turn over property of the estate as a core proceeding.

Duo Metal & Iron Works, Inc. v. General Iron Works Corp. (In Re Duo Metal & Iron Works, Inc.) · filed 1984-12-13(b)(2)(E)

Under Adversary No. 84-0143 the debtor’s cause of action for turnover against General is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies preference proceedings as core proceedings that a bankruptcy judge may hear and determine after referral.

Larose v. Bourg Insurance Agency (In Re Dick Henley, Inc.) · filed 1985-01-14(b)(2)(F)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings arising in a case under Title 11 referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to recover preferential transfers as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Carter v. Homesley (In Re Strom) · filed 1985-02-04(b)(2)(F)

This proceeding is a “core proceeding” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) in which this bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment.

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

Wilson v. Freeman (In re Freeman) · filed 1985-02-21(b)(2)(E)

The matter before the Court is the Complaint filed by the Chapter 13 Trustee in Bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542 against the former husband of the debtor for turnover of property of the estate. The Court finds that this is a core proceeding and properly before it. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats an action to recover a preferential transfer as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Perry v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Perry) · filed 1985-04-22(b)(2)(F)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) makes an action to recover a preference a core proceeding that may be referred to the bankruptcy court.

Otte v. Monsanto Co. (In Re McCrary's Farm Supply, Inc.) · filed 1985-07-29(b)(2)(F)

Under the Bankruptcy Code as amended, this is a core proceeding which is properly referred to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157 classifies proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Steel, Inc. v. Windstein · filed 1985-08-15(b)(2)(H)

Proceedings to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances are properly categorized as core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings to recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings, even when they involve questions of state law.

Huffman v. Perkinson (In Re Harbour) · filed 1985-08-27(b)(2)

The mere fact that a proceeding may involve some question or aspect of state law does not necessarily mean that it is not a core proceeding. Rather, this is a matter to be decided by the court. Considering the definitions above, I believe that the substance of these lawsuits are core proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats proceedings to avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Niedermayer v. Duncan (In Re Duncan) · filed 1985-08-25(b)(2)(H)

The instant complaint is a “core proceeding” arising under Title 11 of the U.S. Code which this Court may hear and determine, and in which this Court may enter appropriate orders and judgments, according to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H): ... Core proceedings are those matters of estate administration over which Congress expressly provided bankruptcy courts jurisdiction in the 1984 amendments.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to avoid or recover preferences as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine.

Judson v. International Terminal Operating Co. (In Re Oro Import Co.) · filed 1985-08-30(b)(2)(F)

Section 157(b)(2)(F) explicitly provides that bankruptcy judges may hear and determine proceedings to avoid or recover preferences as core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). This court finds that the complaint against ITO to avoid preferential transfers is a core proceeding and this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters raised in the Trustee’s complaint.

Section 157(b)(2)(C) does not make a debtor’s independent state contract counterclaim a core proceeding merely because it is asserted against a creditor.

Production Credit Ass'n v. Yagow (In Re Yagow) · filed 1985-10-02(b)(2)(C)

The Debtors’ Counterclaim does not have its roots in the Bankruptcy Code and is not the type of action which is dependent upon the event of bankruptcy for its vitality. If the Production Credit Association wrongfully reneged on lending commitments, any action thereby arising is not dependent on any portion of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court must conclude that the cause of action as espoused in the Debtors’ Counterclaim is not a core proceeding despite the language of section 157(b)(2)(C).

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

Production Steel, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. of America (In Re Production Steel, Inc.) · filed 1985-10-23(b)(2)(F)

The debtor-in-possession seeks to recover a preference in the sum of $95,754.65 from Sumitomo Corporation of America. ... This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157 treats proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may hear and decide by final order.

Windsor Communications Group, Inc. v. Philadelphia Electric Co. (In re Windsor Communications Group, Inc.) · filed 1985-11-22(b)(2)(F)

Bankruptcy judges may hear and enter final orders on all “core” proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). “Core” proceedings include, but are not limited to, proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). Therefore, this Court is the exclusive forum in which the debtor may bring this action. Because the Bankruptcy Court is the exclusive forum, abstention is clearly inappropriate.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) and (K) classify a fraudulent conveyance proceeding involving lien rights as a core proceeding.

Union Planters National Bank v. Bell (In Re Bell) · filed 1985-11-22(b)(2)(H), (K)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies preference proceedings as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may finally determine.

Bergquist v. Anderson-Greenwood Aviation Corp. (In Re Bellanca Aircraft Corp.) · filed 1985-12-09(b)(2)(F)

This Court has jurisdiction over and the power to hear and finally determine all issues arising hereunder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157, and the July 27, 1984, Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the district of Minnesota. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (F) classifies a referred preference proceeding as a core proceeding.

Ledford v. AVCO Finance (In re Durham) · filed 1985-12-26(b)(2)(A), (F)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F).

Section 157 classifies actions to recover preferential and fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may finally determine.

Morgan v. Lefton (In Re Hendon Pools of Michigan, Inc.) · filed 1986-01-28(b)(2)(F), (H)

Under the B.A.F.J.A., bankruptcy courts have the power to hear and finally determine “core proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 157. A nonexclusive list of core proceedings includes actions to recover preferential and fraudulent conveyances, the claims at issue in this appeal. 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(F) and (H).

Section 157 treats an adversary proceeding to recover a preference as a core proceeding.

Production Steel, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp. of America (In Re Production Steel, Inc.) · filed 1986-02-07

This is a core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent transfer proceeding as core even when state law governs its outcome.

Bearden v. Baugh (In Re Baugh) · filed 1986-02-19(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), although principles of state law govern the outcome.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent transfer avoidance proceeding as core, allowing the bankruptcy judge to hear and determine it under § 157(b)(1).

Harris v. Pietri (In Re Pietri) · filed 1986-02-26(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H); pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), the Bankruptcy Judge for this district may hear and determine all core proceedings referred under 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), and the Bankruptcy Judge may enter appropriate orders and judgments.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) constitutionally classifies fraudulent and voluntary conveyance actions as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Addison v. O'Leary · filed 1986-04-23(b)(2)(H)

Section 157(b)(2)(H) specifically lists conveyance actions as core bankruptcy proceedings. ... The Court holds that fraudulent and voluntary conveyance actions have a strong constitutional nexus and therefore can be properly characterized as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats preference actions as core bankruptcy matters.

Windsor Communications Group, Inc. v. Freedom Greeting Card Co. (In Re Windsor Communications Group, Inc.) · filed 1986-03-17(b)(2)(F)

A preference action is a "core” matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (F) classifies a proceeding to recover a preferential transfer as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Foreman Industries, Inc. v. Broadway Sand & Gravel (In Re Foreman Industries, Inc.) · filed 1986-03-24(b)(2)(A) and (F)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (F), in which the plaintiff-debtor, ... seeks to recover as a preference money paid to the defendant, Broadway Sand & Gravel.

Section 157(b)(2) covers a trustee’s proceeding to recover alleged fraudulent transfers as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Matter of Moses · filed 1986-04-16(b)(2)

The Court finds this matter to constitute a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) covers a trustee’s adversary proceeding to recover an allegedly fraudulent transfer as a core proceeding.

Ellenberg v. Chapel Hill Harvester Church, Inc. (In re Moses) · filed 1986-04-16(b)(2)

The Court finds this matter to constitute a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

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

Luring v. Miami Citizens National Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Val Decker Packing Co.) · filed 1986-06-04(b)(2)(F)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (F), in which the plaintiff, Chapter 7 Trustee, seeks to recover as a preference a portion of the funds paid to the defendant, Miami Citizens National Bank and Trust Company (hereinafter the Bank) by Val Decker Packing Co. (hereinafter Decker).

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

Eisenberg v. Casale (In Re Casale) · filed 1986-07-08(b)(2)(E)

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

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

Tennessee Wheel & Rubber Co. v. Street (In Re Tennessee Wheel & Rubber Co.) · filed 1986-07-29(b)(2)(F)

In this preference action the issues are: (1) whether the defendant was an insider; and (2) whether the defendant had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent. ... This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) (1984).

Section 157(b)(2) treats a proceeding alleging fraudulent conveyances, preference transfers, and a related state-law conspiracy as a core proceeding.

Runnells v. Levy · filed 1986-08-07(b)(2)

After a review of the entire amended complaint, including its claims of fraudulent conveyances, preference transfers, etc., including even the state law conspiracy charge, this Court would concur that the proceedings are, indeed, “core” proceedings and that the Bankruptcy Court was correct. ... This Court concurs in the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that the instant amended complaint presents core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2) treats these post-confirmation actions to recover preferential transfers and fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Tennessee Wheel & Rubber Co. v. Captron Corporate Air Fleet (In Re Tennessee Wheel & Rubber Co.) · filed 1986-08-29(b)(2)

This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F), (H), (L) and (O) (Supp.II 1984).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats a proceeding to recover an alleged preferential transfer as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Owens v. First National Bank of Malden (In re Owens) · filed 1986-09-17(b)(2)(F)

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

Section 157(b)(2) treats fraudulent conveyance, preference, and asset marshaling proceedings as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Coors of North Mississippi, Inc. v. Bank of Longview (In Re Coors of North Mississippi, Inc.) · filed 1986-09-18(b)(2)

These matters are core proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F), (H), (K), and (0).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies preferential transfer proceedings as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Crampton v. Dominion Bank of Bristol, N.A. (In Re H.P. King Co.) · filed 1986-09-24(b)(2)(F)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(H) makes fraudulent conveyance proceedings core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

Green v. Stevenson (In Re Stevenson) · filed 1986-10-31(b)(2)(H)

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

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

Pongetti v. Sweeney (In re M.D.I., Inc.) · filed 1986-10-27(b)(2)(F)

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

Section 157(b)(2) covers an adversary proceeding to recover preferential transfers as a core proceeding.

Ragsdale v. M & M Electric Supply, Inc. (In Re Control Electric, Inc.) · filed 1986-10-31(b)(2)

The Court finds this matter to constitute a core proceeding withiñ the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

Section 157(b)(2) treats proceedings concerning estate administration, preferences, and relief from the automatic stay as core proceedings.

Quinn v. Fidelity Financial Services Inc. (In Re Quinn) · filed 1986-10-27(b)(2)(A), (F), (G)

These proceedings are core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F), (G) and (A).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding concerning preference recovery and lien avoidance.

Carter v. Holland (In Re Carraway) · filed 1986-07-16(b)(2)(F), (K) and (O)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (G) treats proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences or fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings in which bankruptcy courts may enter final orders.

Deak & Co. v. Soedjono (In Re Deak & Co.) · filed 1986-07-24(b)(2)(F) and (G)

Such a determination would also be considered a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(F) and (G) (Supp. II 1984) which allow the bankruptcy court to enter a final order when the complaint involves proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences or fraudulent conveyances.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (I) identify categories of core bankruptcy proceedings.

Carlsen v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Carlsen) · filed 1986-08-15(b)(2)(F), (I)

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

Section 157(b)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to treat an adversary proceeding seeking return of allegedly fraudulent or embezzled funds as a core proceeding.

Ottaviano v. Sorokin & Sorokin, P.C. (In Re Ottaviano) · filed 1986-12-09(b)(1)

The parties have treated this proceeding as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), and the court concurs.

Section 157(b) treats preference recovery actions as core proceedings within a bankruptcy judge’s authority to decide.

Anderson v. Duvoisin (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1986-12-17(b)(2)(F)

As a core proceeding, an action to recover a preference is properly considered equitable in nature. ... As equitable proceedings, preference actions such as those presented here are within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy judge to decide.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) covers preference actions as proceedings a bankruptcy court may hear and determine.

McColley v. Navaro Gem Ltd. (In Re Candor Diamond Corp.) · filed 1986-12-11(b)(2)(F)

Navaro initially challenges this court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the Trustee’s action. That dispute has long been resolved in favor of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F); In re Kaiser, 722 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir.1983); In re Lion Capital Group, 44 B.R. 690 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1984).

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

In Re Conard Corporation · filed 1986-12-24(b)(2)(F)

The bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over proceedings to avoid or recover preferences is established in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(F) as a "core proceeding".

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats proceedings to avoid or recover preferences as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Sommers v. Burton · filed 1986-12-24(b)(2)(F)

The bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over proceedings to avoid or recover preferences is established in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) as a “core proceeding”.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats fraudulent transfer actions as core proceedings even when they are based on state law.

Moratzka v. Wencl (In Re Wencl) · filed 1987-03-27(b)(2)(H)

This adversary proceeding clearly is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), regardless of the fact that the Trustee has exercised his power under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) to bring it on the basis of state law rather than on 11 U.S.C. § 548.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies fraudulent conveyance actions as core proceedings.

Join-In International (U.S.A.), Ltd. v. New York Wholesale Distributors Corp. (In re Join-In International (U.S.A.), Ltd · filed 1987-07-22(b)(2)(H)

As a fraudulent conveyance action, the adversary proceeding is within the definition of a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies proceedings to recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Realty Data, Inc. v. Lanciaux (In Re Lanciaux) · filed 1987-07-27(b)(2)(H)

A proceeding to recover a fraudulent conveyance is a core proceeding, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), which is clearly within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 157(b) treats a trustee’s action under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) to set aside a fraudulent conveyance as a core proceeding.

Duck v. Munn · filed 1987-07-27(b)(2)(H)

As explained later in this opinion, an action by a trustee pursuant to Sec. 544(b) to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is in fact a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a trustee’s fraudulent conveyance action under § 544(b), including one based on state law, as a core proceeding that a bankruptcy court may decide.

Duck v. Munn · filed 1987-07-27(b)(2)(H)

As explained later in this opinion, an action by a trustee pursuant to § 544(b) to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is in fact a core proceeding. ... The jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) does not in this case violate Article III.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies an action to avoid a fraudulent transfer as a core proceeding.

In Re Chase & Sanborn Corp. · filed 1988-01-19(b)(2)(H)

A cause of action to avoid a fraudulent transfer is a "core proceeding." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies actions to avoid fraudulent transfers as core proceedings.

Nordberg v. Granfinanciera, S.A. (In re Chase & Sanborn Corp.) · filed 1988-01-19(b)(2)(H)

A cause of action to avoid a fraudulent transfer is a “core proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats preference actions as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may finally decide.

Teitelbaum v. Choquette & Co. (In Re Outlet Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 1988-02-19(b)(2)(F)

As those courts have concluded, a preference action arises under federal law and is integrally related to the restructuring of the debtor-creditor relationship. Accordingly, the designation of a preference action as core, and the granting of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy judges to determine it, are constitutional.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) include state-law actions to avoid preferences and fraudulent transfers among core bankruptcy proceedings.

In Re Harbour · filed 1988-03-02(b)(2)(F), (H)

First, the language of section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) does not limit the proceedings to avoid preferences and fraudulent transfers only to those proceedings authorized by sections 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. It embraces state avoidance laws and includes them as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies preference actions as core proceedings that bankruptcy judges may decide by final judgment.

England v. Fortune Systems Corp. (In Re Visidata Corp.) · filed 1988-03-08(b)(2)(F)

As noted in Part IV, preference actions are properly classified as core bankruptcy proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies proceedings to avoid fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Gerken v. Harris (In Re Auxano, Inc.) · filed 1988-06-14(b)(2)(H)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B), (H) states that core proceedings including “proceedings to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances”. As a result, it is proper for this Court to find that this adversary action is a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies proceedings to recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings that a bankruptcy court may determine.

Schaps v. Just Enough Corp. (In Re Pinto Trucking Service, Inc.) · filed 1988-11-21(b)(2)(H)

There is apparently no dispute that the substance of this proceeding is within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), i.e., it is a proceeding to recover a fraudulent conveyance, and hence it is a core proceeding which this court is empowered to determine.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) treats proceedings to avoid preferential or fraudulent transfers as core proceedings.

Noland v. Fre, Inc. (In re Jackson) · filed 1988-12-05(b)(2)(F) and (H)

This adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies proceedings to avoid and recover preferential transfers as core proceedings.

Lewis v. Diethorn (In Re Joseph M. Eaton Builders, Inc.) · filed 1988-12-06(b)(2)(F)

The matter presently before the Court is a Complaint For Avoidance and Recovery for Preferential Transfer filed by the Chapter 7 Trustee, James A. Lewis, Esq., (hereinafter Trustee), against Thomas J. and Linda M. Diethorn (hereinafter Defendants). This is a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(F) and (H) treats preference and fraudulent transfer proceedings as core bankruptcy proceedings.

Moister v. Young (In Re Young) · filed 1988-12-14(b)(2)(F), (H)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(F) treats preference proceedings as core bankruptcy matters.

Wolinsky v. Central Vermont Teachers Credit Union (In Re Ford) · filed 1989-03-31(b)(2)(F)

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

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

Eide v. United States Ex Rel. FmHA (In Re Quade) · filed 1989-05-19(b)(2)(F)

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

Section 157 classifies proceedings to recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Pryor v. Cohen (In Re Blue Point Carpet, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-19(b)(2)(F) and (H)

This is a core proceeding. Proceedings to recover preferences and fraudulent conveyances are defined as core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H).

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

Fredman v. C.E. Machine Co. (In re Nucorp Energy, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-27(b)(2)(F)

The Court further finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and General Order 312-D of the United States District Court, and that this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine a fraudulent transfer avoidance proceeding as a core proceeding.

Barrett v. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Barrett) · filed 1989-08-17(b)(1), (b)(2)(H)

This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter, as it is a core proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(1), (b)(2)(H).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to hear and determine a core proceeding to avoid a preferential transfer.

Scott v. Almiro Fur Fashion Design (In Re Fisher) · filed 1989-07-28(b)(1), (b)(2)(F)

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

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

Ellenberg v. Mercer (In Re Home Co.) · filed 1989-12-07(b)(2)(F)

This adversary proceeding is an action to avoid a preference and is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent transfer avoidance action as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Sims v. Talman Home Mortgage (In Re Sims) · filed 1990-03-15(b)(2)(H)

This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) and this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies fraudulent conveyance actions as core proceedings even when creditors bring them for their own benefit rather than on behalf of the estate.

Christensen v. St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives (In Re Fulda Independent Co-Op) · filed 1991-09-10(b)(2)(H)

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action is a core proceeding for the purposes of federal bankruptcy jurisdiction; its factual and legal basis places it squarely under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) (“proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances”). This is so, despite the fact that, in suing it out, Plaintiffs are acting only for their own benefit, and not as trustee-fiduciaries for the benefit of the estate in Debtor’s pending case; despite the fact that Plaintiffs seek an award of damages which is keyed in the alternative to the value of their actual loss, rather than solely to the value of the transferred assets; and despite the fact that the trustee has not joined this cause of action himself, and shows no intention to do so.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claim based on state law through § 544(b) as a core proceeding.

Michaels v. Lomax (In Re Skil-Aire Corp.) · filed 1992-07-29(b)(2)(H)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) expressly states that proceedings to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances are core proceedings. ... The trustee’s cause of action against Kazmar under Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) based on the Fraudulent Transfer Act is a core proceeding in which this court can enter a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) classifies actions to determine and recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Bennett v. Genoa Ag Center, Inc. (In Re Bennett) · filed 1992-08-17(b)(2)(H)

This cause of action, like the third, is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), which specifically identifies actions to determine and recover fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings.

Section 157 treats preference and fraudulent conveyance actions as core proceedings that bankruptcy courts may adjudicate without violating Article III when the recipient has filed a claim against the estate.

Turner v. Davis, Gillenwater & Lynch (In re Investment Bankers, Inc.) · filed 1993-09-17(b)(2)

Section 157(b)(2) defines a core proceeding to include “proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences” and “proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances.” ... Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that preferential and fraudulent transfer proceedings may involve private rights, we hold that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under Article III to adjudicate the trustee’s suit.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a proceeding to avoid and recover fraudulent conveyances under state law as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Union National Bank of Marseilles v. Leigh (In Re Leigh) · filed 1994-01-31(b)(2)(H)

Count II, which seeks to set aside certain transfers as fraudulent conveyances, invokes the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which is also a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) to avoid and recover fraudulent conveyances.

Section 157 treats actions to recover preferential transfers as core proceedings in which bankruptcy courts may enter final judgments.

Shindler v. Floyd · filed 1996-08-06(b)(1), (b)(2)(F)

In core proceedings under title 11SSincluding actions to recover a preference, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) (1993)SSa bankruptcy court may enter final orders and judgments.

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

Valley Media, Inc. v. Toys R US, Inc. (In Re Valley Media, Inc.) · filed 2003-01-21(b)(2)(F)

A preferential transfer claim is a core proceeding subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

Section 157(b) treats a Bankruptcy Code action to avoid a transfer as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Startec Global Communications Corp. v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (In Re Startec Global Communications Corp.) · filed 2003-04-24(b)

Similarly, avoidance of transfers is specifically defined by statute as part of the core jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and a matter over which the court holds exclusive jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats a fraudulent conveyance action under § 544(b)(1) as a core proceeding even when the action also relies on state law.

Bliss Technologies, Inc. Ex Rel. Unsecured Creditors Committee v. HMI Industries, Inc. (In Re Bliss Technologies, Inc.) · filed 2004-04-14(b)(2)(H)

First, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) provides that “proceedings to ... avoid ... fraudulent conveyances” are core proceedings, and a fraudulent conveyance cause of action based on the combination of state law and Code § 544(b)(1), in both form and substance, clearly fits within this category.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) covers proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances; allegations seeking none of those remedies do not qualify under that provision.

Crosson v. A.A. Fire Safety (In Re Crosson) · filed 2005-02-18(b)(2)(H)

Despite the Debtor’s contention that the Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), none of the allegations in the complaint seek to determine, avoid or recover any fraudulent conveyances.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats proceedings to set aside fraudulent conveyances as core proceedings within bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

Jones v. Schlosberg (In re Jones) · filed 2006-05-02(b)(2)(H)

The district court properly concluded that a proceeding to set aside a fraudulent conveyance invokes the core subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 treats fraudulent-transfer actions as core proceedings.

Mc Asset Recovery, LLC v. Ag · filed 2010-12-22(b)(2)(H)

It is unclear why the parties so stipulated because § 157 provides that a fraudulent-transfer action is a core proceeding.

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

Cifelli v. Blue Star Residential, LLC (In re Miles) · filed 2012-08-17(b)(2)(H)

Proceedings to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances are core proceedings pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(H).

Section 157(b)(2)(H) gives bankruptcy courts statutory authority to hear, decide, and enter judgment on fraudulent conveyance claims.

Gibson v. Tucker (In re G & S Livestock Co.) · filed 2012-09-05(b)(2)(H)

This Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court had the statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H) to hear, determine, and enter judgment on the Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claim.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment in a core proceeding to avoid and recover fraudulent conveyances.

Brandt v. PlainsCapital Leasing, LLC (In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc.) · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)(H)

A bankruptcy judge to whom a case has been referred may enter final judgment on any core proceeding arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in a case under title 11. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). A proceeding to avoid and recover fraudulent conveyances arises in a case under title 11 and is specified as a core proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H).

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

Dubois v. Imbr Crane (In re Scott Fabricating, Inc.) · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)(F)

This is obviously a mis-designation by the parties: the correct designation is 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F). Despite this error in nomenclature, the court deems the parties to have stipulated to this adversary proceeding being a core proceeding under the appropriate statutory reference.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) classifies preference actions as core bankruptcy proceedings for which a bankruptcy court may enter a final judgment, subject to constitutional limits.

Ciesla v. Harney Management Partners (In re KLN Steel Products Co.) · filed 2014-02-18(b)(2)(F)

Because there is no clear precedent altering the status quo in this respect, the Court will adhere to the pre-Stera practice of issuing its ruling on this core matter as a final judgment, as Congress permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F).

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

Martino v. Miszkowicz (In re Miszkowicz) · filed 2014-07-24(b)(2)(F)

This matter involves a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F): an action to avoid and recover alleged preferential transfers.

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court to decide a proceeding to recover fraudulent conveyances in a bankruptcy case.

Perez v. Yip · filed 2020-01-23(b)(1), (b)(2)(H)

The bankruptcy court indubitably had jurisdiction over the underlying dispute as a “proceeding[] to . . . recover fraudulent conveyances” in a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) treats fraudulent transfer proceedings as core proceedings in which a bankruptcy court has statutory authority to enter a final order.

Nesse, Chapter 7 Trustee v. University System of Maryland · filed 2022-10-04(b)(2)(H)

This matter is a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(H) and the Court has statutory authority to enter a final order.

Section 157(b)(2)(F) does not apply when the debtor asserts no preference claim under § 547.

Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC (In re Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd.) · filed 2019-05-20(b)(2)(F)

However, the Court finds that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) does not apply because the Debtor is not asserting a preference claim against the Lender under 11 U.S.C. § 547.

Section 157(b)(2)(H) does not make every fraudulent conveyance claim a core proceeding; classification requires a fact-specific inquiry.

Empery Tax Efficient, LP v. MusclePharm Corporation · filed 2023-03-21(b)(2)(H)

While “fraudulent conveyance” claims constitute “core proceedings” under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2), the Court does not construe that term to mean that all fraudulent conveyances categorically arise under the Bankruptcy Code. Instead, this determination requires a more fact-intensive inquiry.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) permits a bankruptcy judge to enter a final judgment in a core turnover proceeding when the turnover power is properly invoked.

Ball v. Soundview Composite Ltd. (In re Soundview Elite Ltd.) · filed 2016-01-04(b)(2)(E)

Construing its turnover authority to avoid the Constitutional issue, the Court determines that her claims are 'non-core matters. And for’that reason,' the Court cannot enter the final' judgment that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E)) would permit a bankruptcy judge to enter if the Turnover Power were appropriately invoked.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) gives a bankruptcy court core jurisdiction over a turnover claim when the defendant asserts a setoff claim against estate property and invokes the court’s equitable jurisdiction.

Commercial Financial Services, Inc. v. Jones (In Re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 2000-04-21(b)(2)(E)

In contrast, in this case, Jones has asserted a setoff claim against estate property, invoking the Court’s equitable jurisdiction, resulting in this Court acquiring core jurisdiction to adjudicate CFS’s turnover claim and Jones’s setoff defense without a jury pursuant to Section 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter a final order on a turnover claim involving a disputed debt against a party that has not asserted a claim against the estate.

Commercial Financial Services, Inc. v. Bartmann (In Re Commercial Financial Services, Inc.) · filed 2000-04-21(b)(2)(E)

The Court further concludes that for constitutional reasons, at this time it does not have jurisdiction to render final orders on CFS’s turnover claims, notwithstanding that such' claims are listed as “core” matters over which bankruptcy courts have plenary jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157 treats a turnover request for alleged estate property as a core proceeding when the trustee pleads that the property belongs to the estate.

Zimmerman v. First Union National Bank (In re Silva) · filed 1999-07-28(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E)

Section 157(b)(2)(E) characterizes orders to turn over property of the estate as core matters, as does § 157(b)(2)(A) for matters concerning the administration of the estate. Because the Trustee’s Complaint specifically pleaded that First Fidelity turn over the account under the name Milano-Silva Inc. to the Estate because that account was in fact the property of the Estate, it appears that the court did not err in considering the Trustee’s turnover request.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make an action to collect disputed prepetition accounts receivable a core turnover proceeding.

Peter J. Schmitt Co. v. Firestone Star Market Inc. (In Re Peter J. Schmitt Co.) · filed 1993-01-07(b)(2)(E)

Schmitt also argues its account receivable actions are “turn over” actions within the meaning of section 157(b)(2)(E). This argument is without merit.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to recover filed-rate freight undercharges as a core turnover proceeding.

Hoarty v. Bennett Transportation (In Re Best Refrigerated Express, Inc.) · filed 1991-08-21(b)(2)(E)

I conclude, as did Judge Dreher, that based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Craig v. McCarthy Ranch Trust (In re Cassidy Land & Cattle Co., Inc.) 836 F.2d 1130 (8th Cir.1988), an action to recover undercharges in accordance with filed rates is in the nature of a turnover proceeding and, therefore, is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157 treats turnover actions as core proceedings only when the property sought is property of the bankruptcy estate.

In Re Michael Carmine Gallucci, Debtor. Angelina Gallucci v. Charles E. Grant, as Trustee · filed 1991-05-16(b)(2)(E)

Applications for turnover orders ordinarily are core proceedings within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) (1988) (core proceedings include “orders to turn over property of the estate”). ... If the action does not involve property of the estate, then not only is it a noncore proceeding, it is an unrelated matter completely beyond the bankruptcy court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a turnover claim for a matured account receivable as a core proceeding even when the defendant disputes the debt or asserts a setoff.

Silverman v. U.W. Marx, Inc. (In Re Leco Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1991-04-05(b)(2)(E)

Since Section 542 specifically provides defendants with grounds upon which to defend, it cannot be said that Section 542 or Section 157(b)(2)(E) only apply to undisputed liquidated debts.

A proceeding seeking to recover specific funds alleged to be property of the estate falls within § 157(b)(2)(E).

In Re Shapiro · filed 1991-03-08(b)(2)(E)

Furthermore, since the proceeding seeks to recover specific funds which are allegedly property of the estate, the invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) is appropriate.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats an action to collect a matured debt under § 542(b) as a core turnover proceeding.

Baldwin-United Corp. v. Thompson (In Re Baldwin-United Corp.) · filed 1985-02-12(b)(2)(E)

The words “to turn over property of the estate” are terms of art in the bankruptcy context, (cf. U.S. v. Whiting Pools, Inc., 462 U.S. 198, 103 S.Ct. 2309, 76 L.Ed.2d 515 (1983)) and their use by Congress evinces an intention to include all proceedings brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542 as core proceedings. Since Debtors’ complaint seeks a turnover of money owed on a debt which is “matured, payable on demand, or payable on order” under § 542(b), it follows that their action constitutes a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) makes orders to turn over estate property core proceedings, but a disputed state-law claim does not become core merely because it is pleaded as a turnover action.

Appel v. Mainstar Oil Co. (In Re B & L Oil Co.) · filed 1985-02-19(b)(2)(E)

It is clear to me that under the Bankruptcy Code as promulgated in 1984, and as implemented in the jurisdictional amendments contained in Title 28 of the U.S.Code, the action herein is more appropriately denominated as a “non-core proceeding” that is “otherwise related to a case under Title 11.” See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and (c). This does not simply involve “orders to turnover property of the estate” as contemplated in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not classify disputed insurance coverage claims as core turnover proceedings when the alleged debt is not matured, payable on demand, or payable on order.

B-U Acquisition Group, Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance (In Re Baldwin-United Corp.) · filed 1985-08-30(b)(2)(E)

We would be required to stretch the language of § 542(b) to the breaking point in order to find that the defendants owe a debt which is “matured, payable on demand, or payable on order,” and that this is a turnover proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E). Indeed, certain of the defendants contend that they owe the debtors nothing.

Section 157(b)(2)(A) and (E) classify a trustee’s proceeding to turn over estate property as a core proceeding.

Gilbert v. Osburn (In Re Osburn) · filed 1986-01-06(b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(E)

This is a case arising under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and having been referred to this court is determined to be a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (E), in which the Chapter 7 Trustee seeks an order to turn over property of the estate.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a state law action to collect disputed accounts receivable a core turnover proceeding unless liability has been established by a final judgment, stipulation, or other binding determination.

Satelco, Inc. v. North American Publishers, Inc. (In Re Satelco, Inc.) · filed 1986-03-13(b)(2)(E)

For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that actions to collect accounts receivable based upon state law contract principles do not fall within the scope of turnover actions as contemplated by § 542 and § 157(b)(2)(E), absent a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction, a stipulation, or some other binding determination of liability.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not treat an action to collect an account receivable as a core turnover proceeding.

Century Brass Products, Inc. v. Millard Metals Service Center, Inc. (In Re Century Brass Products, Inc.) · filed 1986-03-18(b)(2)(E)

Under this analysis, the reference in § 157(b)(2)(E) to an “order to turn over property of the estate” does not include an action to collect upon an account receivable, even if Century’s account receivable could be included within the parameters of § 542(b).

Section 157 treats this turnover dispute and the related attorney’s fees requests as a core proceeding.

In Re McCary · filed 1986-03-26

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

Section 157(b)(2) does not make a debtor’s disputed account receivable claim a core proceeding merely because the debtor pleads it as a turnover action; a state law contract claim of this kind is noncore.

Arnold Printworks, Inc. v. Apkin · filed 1986-06-03(b)(2)

This so-called action to compel turnover of accounts receivable can also easily be characterized as a Uniform Commercial Code seller’s action to recover on a contract for the sale of goods. ... The Court therefore concludes that the decision of the bankruptcy court that this proceeding is a non-core matter is correct.

Section 157 authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and decide core proceedings, including preference and turnover actions.

Stamps v. Sexton Bros. Tire Co. (In Re Major Tire Co.) · filed 1986-08-22(b)(2)

Section 157 of Title 28, United States Code gives bankruptcy judges the power to hear and determine all cases under Title 11 and all core proceedings arising under Title 11. Section 157 also lists a sample of core proceedings. The pertinent clauses read “Core proceedings include but are not limited to— ... (F) proceedings to determine, avoid or recover preferences ... (H) proceedings to determine, avoid or recover fraudulent conveyances.” Clearly the questions before this Court are core proceedings and thus are equitable in nature.

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

Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc. v. Slay Warehousing Co. (In Re Wisconsin Barge Line, Inc.) · filed 1986-09-05(b)(2)(E)

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

A disputed conversion or negligence claim does not become a core turnover proceeding merely because the trustee labels it a turnover claim.

Taxel v. Commercebank (In Re World Financial Services Center, Inc.) · filed 1986-09-29(b)(2)(E)

Based upon the foregoing, this court finds that the trustee’s cause of action for turnover cannot be enforced through a turnover order, rather his claims against defendant Commercebank are more properly characterized as negligence and conversion actions. ... This court finds that therefore, this proceeding is not a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats proceedings seeking turnover of estate property as core proceedings.

Double TRL, Inc. v. F.S. Leasing, Inc. (In Re Double TRL, Inc.) · filed 1986-10-22(b)(2)(E)

3. Adversary Proceeding No. 186-0042 is a “core proceeding” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats a trustee’s proceeding for turnover of estate funds as a core bankruptcy proceeding.

Huisinga v. Security Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Drewes) · filed 1986-11-13(b)(2)(E)

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

Section 157(b)(2)(E) includes turnover of estate property among core bankruptcy proceedings.

Ferguson v. Central National Bank of Junction City (In Re Ferguson) · filed 1986-10-21(b)(2)(E)

An order to turn over property of the estate is a final order that is expressly included as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make an independent state-law claim a core turnover proceeding merely because the debtor claims the defendant holds estate property.

Britton v. Fessler & Bowman, Inc. (In Re Britton) · filed 1986-10-30(b)(2)(E)

Obviously, this reading of “orders to turn over property of the estate” would make the balance of § 157(b)(2) superfluous in most cases. Accordingly, we hold that this action is not a “turnover” action.

Section 157(b) treats a trustee’s turnover action as a core proceeding in which the bankruptcy court may enter final judgment.

Dunlavey v. Uhlmeyer (In Re Uhlmeyer) · filed 1986-12-18(b)

Such an action is a core proceeding as that term is defined by the 1984 Bankruptcy Amendments. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E), (F), (H) and (O). Accordingly, a final judgment will be entered by this Court. § 157(b)(1).

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

Allegheny, Inc. v. Laniado Wholesale Co. (In Re Allegheny, Inc.) · filed 1986-12-01(b)(2)(E)

In the instant case, the claim does warrant this status and therefore, pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(E), this cause of action does constitute a core proceeding.

Section 157(b)(2) treats garden-variety accounts receivable actions as core proceedings.

In Re Windsor Communications Group, Inc. · filed 1986-12-04(b)(2)

Moreover, we continue to believe that it is greatly in the best interest of all of the participants in the bankruptcy process that we conclude, as we do, that garden-variety accounts receivable actions are core proceedings.

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not classify a state-law contract claim as a core turnover proceeding when liability is genuinely disputed.

Acolyte Electric Corp. v. City of New York · filed 1986-12-09(b)(2)(E)

In this adversary proceeding there is a legitimate dispute as to whether Acolyte is entitled to recover the funds claimed due under the contract. Since a resolution of this action involves a state law determination of the defendant’s liability under the contract, it is a step away from a true § 542 turnover proceeding and, therefore, does not constitute a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) permits a debtor’s claim for proceeds under a post-petition insurance policy to be treated as a core turnover proceeding.

Burns v. Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n (In Re Mike Burns Inn, Inc.) · filed 1987-03-04(b)(2)(E)

Additionally, although the Debtors caption the counts in their complaint as breach of contract and deceit, the Court notes that the complaint is easily construed as one for turnover pursuant to § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not make a contested claim to collect money a core turnover proceeding merely because the debtor characterizes it as turnover.

Northeast Dairy Cooperative Federation, Inc. v. Dellwood Foods, Inc. (In Re Northeast Dairy Cooperative Federation, Inc. · filed 1987-03-11(b)(2)(E)

The Court does not believe the present action can be resolved by simple execution of a turnover order, for based upon the foregoing, Ned-co’s action is not a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) does not classify a disputed claim for unpaid rent as a core turnover proceeding when the debtor’s right to payment must first be established.

Funding Systems Asset Management Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · filed 1987-04-29(b)(2)(E)

Until such time as Debtor succeeds upon its cause of action, there will be no property for 3M to turn over. Therefore, the instant proceeding does not qualify as “core” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E).

Section 157(b)(2)(E) treats proceedings to order turnover of estate property as core proceedings.

Bishop v. Masters (In Re Masters) · filed 1987-05-06(b)(2)(E)

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