case as well. The district court permissively abstained under § 1334(c)(1) and equitably remanded pursuant to § 1452(b). The district court did not address the related Chapter 15 bankruptcies. Courts may permissively abstain from certain bankruptcy cases “[ejxcept with respect to a case under chapter 15.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) (emphasis added). Defendants base their challenge to the district court’s order on the argument that § 1452 does not apply in this case, rather than on the court’s reasons for remand. We conclude that Defendants’ challenge to the remand order thus falls within an exception to nonreviewability. See Schexnayder, 394 F.3d at 283 (the Fifth Circuit will review a case if based on a ground for remand not contemplated by remand statute); Wilson Indus., 886 F.2d at 95 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we' have jurisdiction to review
holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute holding that appellate court in affirming trial courts decision may rely in part on a ground not presented to trial court holding that in reviewing a district courts decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo the decision can be affirmed on any ground that finds support in the record including an alternate ground