extent that some common law immunity did exist against these four counts, by filing his own claim in this bankruptcy case, the receiver has submitted to this court’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning the allowance and disallowance of that claim. Such disputes, especially in light of section 502(d), include preference and fraudulent conveyance actions. See generally Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. at 44, 111 S.Ct. 330; In re Best Products Co., Inc., 1994 WL 141970; In re Parker North American Corp., 148 B.R. at 925. If the trustee is successful in obtaining a judgment on counts I through IV, I appreciate that federal common law appears to preclude his execution upon that judgment without leave of the Florida State court. See Smith v. American Industrial Research Corp., 665 F.2d at 400 (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth Trust Co. of Pittsburgh v.
holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding that an order from a nonappointing court requiring the receiver to immediately pay the judgment amount was invalid holding that an order requiring a prosecutor to disclose his notes from voir dire over a claim of workproduct privilege was immediately appealable under rule 313 holding an order refusing to enforce a settlement agreement is not immediately appealable because it does not prevent a judgment from being rendered in the action and appellant can seek review of the current order in any appeal from final judgment