the district court applied the traditional test for a preliminary injunction, the court ultimately rested its holding on the fact that if the non-debtor litigation were allowed to continue "any effort at reorganization of the debtor” would be "frustrated, if not permanently thwarted.” Piccinin, 788 F.2d at 1008. It then stated that the record was “more than adequate to support the district court's grant of injunctive relief.” Id. 13 . See Continental Illinois National Bank v. Chicago, 294 U.S. 648, 675, 55 S.Ct. 595, 79 L.Ed. 1110 (1935) ("The power to issue an injunction when necessary to prevent the defeat or impairment of its jurisdiction is inherent in a court of bankruptcy, as it is in a duly established court of equity.”); Fisher v. Apos-tolou, 155 F.3d 876, 882 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Lentz v. Cahaba Disaster Relief, LLC (In re
holding that it was unnecessary for the bankruptcy court to find that the traditional elements required for a preliminary injunction were satisfied because a bankruptcy court can enjoin proceedings in other courts when it is satisfied that such proceedings would defeat or impair its jurisdiction over the case before it holding that the a bankruptcy court can enjoin proceedings in other courts when it is satisfied that such proceedings would defeat or impair its jurisdiction over the case before it and the court does not need to demonstrate an inadequate remedy at law or irreparable harm holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case holding that bankruptcy court may enjoin federal administrative proceedings when they threaten the debtors estate