Rec. S17799 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1992) (emphasis added). Not only is the term “claim” broad in scope, the “relating to” language of the FAR regulation itself is a term of substantial breadth. The term “related” is typically defined as “associated; connected.” See Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 1626 (2d ed. 1998); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1288 (6th ed. 1991) (defining “related” as “[standing in relation; connected; allied; akin”); Oxford English Dictionary 1695 (3d ed. 1947) (defining “relation” as “any connection, correspondence, or association, which can be conceived as naturally existing between things”). The Supreme Court has interpreted the term “related to” broadly. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 307-08, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504
holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional holding that congress jurisdictional grant to bankruptcy courts to hear proceedings related to a bankruptcy case suggests a grant of some breadth and includes inter alia suits between third parties which have an effect on the bankruptcy estate holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case