Residential capital liquidating trust dating italian man 20
A, with Original Compl.) At least seventy related actions remain pending in the Minnesota courts. at 27.) On July 11, 2014, the defendant moved to withdraw the bankruptcy reference in this case pursuant to 28 U.
§ 157(d) and to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.
Second, Res Cap's argument that this is a core proceeding because it concerns the administration of the bankruptcy estate proves too much.
The debtor then filed an unrelated counterclaim, asserting that the creditor had tortiously interfered with an expected gift.
(In re Orion Pictures Corp.), 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir.1993)).
Res Cap argues that this adversary proceeding is a core proceeding because it involves the enforcement of the bankruptcy court's own orders, concerns the "administration of the estate," § 157(b)(2)(A), and is a counterclaim against PHH Mortgage's proof of claim.
Ed.2d 475 (2011), however, it is now clear that the level of review for some core proceedings must be de no novo and that a bankruptcy court can only make proposed findings of fact and conclusions in such proceedings. First, Res Cap fails to explain how its complaint interacts with a prior bankruptcy court order, and the cases cited by Res Cap stand for the modest principle that courts retain jurisdiction to enforce their own orders. Simpson, 613 F.3d 346, 352 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam) ("[A] bankruptcy court retains post-confirmation jurisdiction to interpret and enforce its own orders." (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Baker v.
The Plan preserved RFC's claims against the loan originators and assigned them to Res Cap.
Orion cautioned that "[a]ny contract action that the debtor would pursue against a defendant presumably would be expected to inure to the benefit of the debtor estate and thus `concern[s]' its `administration.'" 4 F.3d at 1102.
The dispute concerns pre-petition contracts, which will be interpreted according to Minnesota law.
The Court of Appeals explained that the core or non-core distinction was crucial because the bankruptcy court's determination of non-core matters was subject to de novo review by the district court.
Burger Boys (In re Burger Boys, Inc.), 94 F.3d 755, 762 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Orion Pictures Corp. Under this framework, the threshold question was whether the case involved a core or non-core proceeding, "since it is upon this issue that questions of efficiency and uniformity will turn." Orion, 4 F.3d at 1101.