In Re AGENCY FOR DEPOSIT INSURANCE,
REHABILITATION,BANKRUPTCY AND LIQUIDATION
OF BANKS, AS BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR
OF JUGOBANKA AND BEOGRADSKA BANKA,
Debtors in Foreign Proceedings.
02 Civ. 8131 (JSR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24838, 310 B.R. 793
December 30, 2002, Decided
December 30, 2002, Filed
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
By motion dated October 11, 2002, the United States, with the concurrence of the Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York, moved under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) for mandatory withdrawal of the reference of this matter to the Bankruptcy Court. The motion was opposed by the Banking Rehabilitation Agency (the “BRA”) on behalf of Beogradska Banka and Jugobanka. While the movants initially made a sufficient showing as to warrant a stay, see Order dated October 25, 2002, at oral argument on the merits on November 22, 2002, see transcript, the Court expressed increasing doubt as to whether this case qualified for mandatory withdrawal. The Court hereby confirms that it does not so qualify, especially given that the case raises no genuine conflict between Title 11 and other federal (as opposed to state) laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
At the hearing on November 22, 2002, however, the Court, sua sponte, raised the question of whether, even if withdrawal was not mandated, permissive withdrawal might be warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), and requested further briefing to explore that question. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, however, the Court concludes that permissive withdrawal is likewise inappropriate.
In determining whether to exercise its discretion to withdraw a matter where withdrawal is not mandatory, a court should consider, without limitation, such factors as: “(1) whether the claim is core or non-core, (2) what is the most efficient use of judicial resources, (3) what is the delay and what are the costs to the parties, (4) what will promote uniformity of bankruptcy administration, (5) what will prevent forum shopping, and (6) other related factors.” In re Burger Boys, Inc., 94 F.3d 755, 762 (2d Cir. 1996); see also In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993). Here, the claim sought to be withdrawn was brought under 11 U.S.C. § 304 and would appear to be a core proceeding. See, e.g., In re Treco, 229 B.R. 280, 284 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999)[*3] (referring to a section 304 proceeding as a “core proceeding”). Indeed, a proceeding under section 304 can seemingly only arise in the context of a bankruptcy case. See generally In re CIS Corp., 172 B.R. 748, 755 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)(core proceeding is one that “could only arise in the context of a bankruptcy case”). Moreover, neither judicial efficiency nor uniformity of bankruptcy administration would be materially advanced by a withdrawal of the reference in the instant case, since, inter alia, there are no related cases pending before this Court. Likewise, declining to withdraw the reference will not result in any additional delay or costs to the parties, and, indeed, will likely result in an overall streamlining of the case, because the Bankruptcy Court is uniquely familiar with section 304 petitions. As for forum shopping by BRA — the possibility of which weighed heavily in the Court’s initial granting of a stay — counsel for BRA has now made a convincing showing that this has not been involved. See transcript, November 22, 2002. Finally, notwithstanding the movants’ strenuous arguments to the contrary, the Court sees no other compelling reason to withdraw[*4] the reference.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the motion to withdraw the reference is denied in all respects, the stay is lifted, and the matter may proceed in the Bankruptcy Court. However, because this Court has become familiar with the issues presented by these petitions, any appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings shall be marked as cases related to the instant proceeding, so they may be assigned to this Court.
SO ORDERED.
JED S. RAKOFF
United States District Judge